Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!hubcap!ncrcae!opusc!yarnall
From: yarnall@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Yarnall)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PIPEs
Message-ID: <1990Nov7.235254.13959@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 23:52:54 GMT
References: <6984@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1990Nov4.215000.2760@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> <6997@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Math Department, University of South Carolina (ahem; The USC)
Lines: 52

In article <6997@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
+In article <1990Nov4.215000.2760@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> yarnall@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Ken Yarnall) writes:
+> I really dislike wildcard expansion in the shell.  Granted, it would have
+> been nicer in 1.3, since there was no library support of standard pattern
+> matching, but now that 2.0 has good, standardized routines to do this, I
+> can't for the life of me see how shell expansion is superior.
+
+(a) There are still machines outthere running 1.3. Like, most of them.

True, but most utilities that need pattern matching coded it in, and there
has always been a standard, even if it wasn't directly supported.  Now it is.

+(b) You still need quoting conventions. Quickly, how do you delete a file
+    named "#?.c"? Why not use them consistently?

Of course you do -- I never tried to imply that we could get rid of
quoting...unless we go to really restricted filenaming, ala DOS.  What I
would like is a nice, intuitive, consistent system, which would minimize the
need for quoting, and make those instances where it is needed clear.  I do
not think that is the case in the unix shells.

+(c) You're at the mercy of programmers who neglect to provide for it. VAX/VMS
+    has had wildcard libraries forever, and it still trips me up. That's how
+    you get files named "#?.c" in the first place.

Er, I'm not at the mercy of anybody.  If a utility should make patterns
available (imho), and doesn't, and it is a serious problem to me, I look for
a replacement.  Really, most of the programs that will need it are filesystem
support utilities, which now have it in uniformity.  For 1.3, there are
replacements for the C: commands that don't implement it.  
 
At any rate, the real question was, which is better, not which was more
readily available in AmigaDOS.  1.3 had the worst of both worlds -- neither
shell nor library expansion.  2.0, I think, has the best.  It is up to
programmers, if they want their programmers to be flexible and robust, to use
them.  And there is always the arp.library for 1.3,

+
+For things like "move", I'd rather go to slices:
+
+	move {.*}.c \1.h

Yeah, right.  That is much clearer...:-)

+Peter da Silva.   `-_-'

ken
-- 
     Ken Yarnall                 ///   yarnall@usceast.cs.scarolina.EDU
      Math Department, USC   \\\///   yarnall@ucseast.UUCP
       Columbia, S.C. 29208   \\\/   (803)777-5218
    `You'd better tie me up.' -- from the movie, "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down"