Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!
From: lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Wildcard types
Message-ID: <2183@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Date: 1 Nov 90 20:07:37 GMT
Lines: 32
Return-Path: <lpami!lphillips>
To: van-bc!rnews

In <87.272D0968@myamiga.UUCP>, smp@myamiga.UUCP (Steve Palm) writes:
>There was a message a while back that someone didn't like ARP becuase they 
>didn't follow Commodore's standards, like wilcard format.  Personally I use 
>the wildcard set supplied by Commodore and get along with it just fine.  
>However....
> 
>I recently received my AmigaVision package.  If you look in the manual, page
>3-42, "you can use the wildcard characters * and ?".  Gee...  Commodore 
>doesn't even support it's own defined standard wildcards.  NOW who broke the 
>standards?

Not CBM, though I suspect you are thinking they did.

>Again, on page 5-6, it only mentions wildcards * and ?.  It seems to me that 
>if Commodore wants things to be the same (which I *highly* endorse), they 
>should utilize their own standard wildcard characters.  Adding additional 
>characters to this set is fine, but at least support the base set.

They support the standard Amigados wildcards an _optionally_ support the '*' as
a substitute (synonym) for '#?'.

-larry


--
It is not possible to both understand and appreciate Intel CPUs.
    -D.Wolfskill
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+