Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!know!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!uw-beaver!fluke!gtisqr!rick
From: rick@gtisqr.uucp (Hendrik Groeneveld)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Wildcard types
Message-ID: <1990Nov16.171451.5668@gtisqr.uucp>
Date: 16 Nov 90 17:14:51 GMT
References: <15517@cbmvax.commodore.com> <2439@trlluna.trl.oz> <15620@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Reply-To: rick@gtisqr.UUCP (Hendrik Groeneveld)
Organization: Global Tech Int'l Inc.
Lines: 21

In article <15620@cbmvax.commodore.com> andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel) writes:
>In article <2439@trlluna.trl.oz> aduncan@rhea.trl.oz (Allan Duncan) writes:

>>Also, they are not interpreted by the shell, so you can never be
>>sure in advance if the program you were invoking supported them.
>
>Not having wildcard expansion for every command is a *feature*.
>(I can say this because the dos wildcard routines
> are available via standard DOS calls in 2.0 :-)  )
>

Adding wildcard expansion as a DOS call is an improvement, but
expansion is the shells job. If I don't want somthing expanded
by the shell, I'll quote it. IMHO, if the shell doesn't do wildcard
expansion, it's a *bug*, not a feature. :-(

--
Rick Groeneveld				UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!rick
Software Engineer			Bell: (206) 742-9111
Global Technology Intl. Inc.
Mukilteo Washington.