Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wuarchive!udel!rochester!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!subbarao
From: subbarao@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Kartik Subbarao)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: UNIX mind-set  -> OK, OK!
Message-ID: <5371@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 15 Jan 91 02:18:55 GMT
References: <1991Jan14.170115.17178@Think.COM> <11390@lanl.gov>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Lines: 27

In article <11390@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>From article <1991Jan14.170115.17178@Think.COM>, by barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin):
>> [...]
>> In the "one tool = one job" approach, I think the shell should handle the
>> job of parsing command lines.  Since part of this philosophy is that the
>> tool should do this one job *well*, I don't think the shell should expand
>> wildcards.  It doesn't know which arguments are filenames, so it shouldn't
>> blindly expand wildcards in all of them.

As was stated earlier, it's a lot much less overhead to have just the
shell do globbing and let the user decide whether he wants parts of the
command line unglobbed than forcing every application to do this.

>I usually don't post to these wild flame-fest discussions (even those
>I start!) except on weekends.  But the above is the first intelligent
>comment about wildcard 'globbing' that has been posted.  I just wanted
>to say "Bravo!"

Yo, Jim. Ever heard of the ' and " characters? They _do_ come in handy when you
don't wan't to glob part or all of a command line. 

			-Kartik
--
internet# ls -alR | grep *.c
subbarao@{phoenix or gauguin}.Princeton.EDU -|Internet
kartik@silvertone.Princeton.EDU (NeXT mail)       -|	
SUBBARAO@PUCC.BITNET			          - Bitnet