Newsgroups: comp.os.misc Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!rose!ccplumb From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) Subject: Re: shell architecture (to glob or not to glob) Message-ID: <1991Mar5.171819.10543@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <1991Jan14.013815.11419@ims.alaska.edu> <11314@lanl.gov> <0IS9YFC@xds13.ferranti.com> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1991 17:18:19 GMT Lines: 19 > In article , kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) writes: >> As a trivial but amusing example, the other day I had a file whose name >> started with '-'. There was no way to tell programs which expects shell >> globbing that "this is not a command option; this is a filename". peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) wrote: > > command options-and-arguments -- filenames-only > > If the command wasn't written to support this syntax, blame that > particular program: this has been a standard for years. There are badly > written programs in program-does-globbing systems too. Actually, I find that 'command ./filename' works very well, and does not require much intelligence in the command's option parsing. Yes, "--" is a standard and should probably be supported, but I've never seen the need unless you use options that can begin with "." or "/". -- -Colin