Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!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: <1991Jan15.104028.1502@hawkmoon.MN.ORG>
Date: 15 Jan 91 10:40:28 GMT
References: <11305@lanl.gov> <1991Jan14.013815.11419@ims.alaska.edu> <11314@lanl.gov> <5340@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <1991Jan15.004753.15129@lingua.cltr.uq.OZ.AU>
Organization: Home System (One of the Eternal Champions); Eagan, MN, 55123-2507, USA
Lines: 24

root@lingua.cltr.uq.OZ.AU (Hulk Hogan) writes:

>Which shells?  Sounds like a useful feature.

ksh for one and i'm sure that csh has it as well.

>One thing DOS does have in its favour is that the wildcarding routines
>are easily accessed. It is quite simple to expand out filename command
>line arguments at the start of the program, and to do wildcarding at any
>other time during the program. The Unix shells give you great command-line
>wildcards, but no easy way of doing wildcarding within your programs, and
>few programs which allow you to use wildcards.

Er, uhm, in what version of dos?  I have never used any dos greater than 3.3
but as far as i knew when i programmed, i had to either call a wildcarding
routine in a compiler that i purchased (such as microsoft c, or turbo c, etc),
call a public domain wildcard routine, or write one myself.  I chose to use the
public domain routine because it was the most useful (for my needs).
Are you saying that the wildcarding routines that are easily accessed are
integral to ms-dos?
-- 
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