Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!dgbt!don
From: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Subject: re: Globbing
Message-ID: <1991Feb21.204416.23369@dgbt.doc.ca>
Sender: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 20:44:16 GMT

>In an article, dgbt.doc.ca!don (Donald McLachlan) writes:
>|1 remove globbing from the shell.
>|2 put in a library.
>|3 current shell programs would need to be updated (first thing they do
>|  is call glob(argc, argv), returning argc and argv updated (globbed)
>|4 New programs that want to glob can call glob.
>
>This has been discussed before, but briefly put, it would complicate code
>needlessly, and create even more of a maze of command syntax for the
>average user.  The one Good Thing about the shell globbing is that it is
>consistent; putting globbing in the tool itself would create an endless
>opportunity for inconsistency and confusion.  I would vote ``no'' on this one.
>
>Cheers,
>-- 
>Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own.
>Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?
>

Sorry, a typo of mine may have made my idea sound less consistant than I
intended. What I wanted 2) to say was to put globbing into a standard
library, so that aside from the rare cases like "rename *.pas *.p" all
globbing would still be "psuedo standard".

Now I mentioned this not because I think doing this is the ultimate answer,
but it would allow someone to implement their favorite rename command. That
is what prompted me to post originally.

Don McL



Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com