Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!atc!s5000!nightowl!hawkmoon!det
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: UNIX mind-set -> OK, OK!
Message-ID: <1991Jan15.084839.703@hawkmoon.MN.ORG>
Date: 15 Jan 91 08:48:39 GMT
References: <1991Jan13.113349.21937@ims.alaska.edu> <11305@lanl.gov> <1991Jan14.013815.11419@ims.alaska.edu> <11314@lanl.gov>
Organization: Home System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Lines: 29

jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

>Ok!  Everyone's right and I'm wrong (about the _single_ issue below).

>Yes, both of the shells that are bundled with versions of UNIX _do_
>automatically trash (that is, 'process') the command line arguments to
>expand wildcards.

Why is this a bad thing?  Everytime i have written a utility in dos, i have had
to manually expand the wildcard characters on the command line.  (Of course, i
rather quickly got a standard public domain library routine to do it for me
because it was so painful)  It seems to me, without expending a great deal of
thought on it, that the majority of applications/utilities would desire
wildcard expansion of the command line.  Are you asserting that the reverse is
true?

>Explains why I don't use the bundled command shells
>much.

What command line shell or interpreter or menu system do you use then?

>This is a choice that _should_ be left to the discretion of the
>utility writer.

Yes, i agree, but i can't think of an easy way of implementing this, can you?
-- 
Derek "Tigger" Terveer	det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG - MNFHA, NCS - UMN Women's Lax, MWD
I am the way and the truth and the light, I know all the answers; don't need
your advice.  -- "I am the way and the truth and the light" -- The Legendary Pink Dots