Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!metapro!bernie From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: shell architecture (to glob or not to glob) Message-ID: <1991Feb25.052212.2338@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> Date: 25 Feb 91 05:22:12 GMT References: <1991Jan14.013815.11419@ims.alaska.edu> <11314@lanl.gov> <5340@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <1991Jan14.170115.17178@Think.COM> <360@bria> <1991Jan17.185527.9824@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <365@bria> <378@bria> <19062@cbmvax.commodor Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia Lines: 29 In <19062@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: > The classic problem with shell-provided globbing (and causes you to >have to use escapes to avoid the shell globbing things that aren't filenames). >If you have a richer expression space (ala regexp), you end up having to >do a LOT of quoting. You don't have to escape it ad nauseum. A rich set of escapes can potentially escape varying levels of glob patterns. e.g. UNIX's \'" quoting. Also, the ability to turn off globbing, and later to turn it back on, is essential to maintain one's sanity. I'd be insane by now if that wasn't possible! It's been mentioned previously, that early UNIX shells did not have globbing in-built, and called a 'glob' program for the job. IMHO, it makes more sense to glob in the shell, than in the program. It saves typing, especially when one uses globbing to specify the program name. :-) -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include Metapro Systems, / sale \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com