Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!amdcad!dgcad!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Globbing
Summary: strategy for retrofitting context dependency
Message-ID: <1406@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 18 Mar 91 00:53:54 GMT
References: <5573:Feb2307:19:4491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <19336@cbmvax.commodore.com> <43994@cos.com> <2438@ria.ccs.uwo.ca> <44200@cos.com>
Lines: 26

> fetter@cos.com (Bob Fetter)
> My point of earlier is that it's too late to retrofit Unix software
> into doing ->context directed<- wildcard expansion.

I agree that it's too late to retrofit context directed wildcard
expansion into individual Unix programs (not that it is impossible,
just prohibitive...).

But, that doesn't mean that it can't be done to "Unix" as an
environment.  Just that it has to be done co-operatively with the shell,
not co-operatively with individual commands. 

For example, an rc-like file full of context descriptions of common
commands along with a default context for commands not explicitly
mentioned.

And while I realize that many object that in such a scheme one would
have to "figure out" what each commands does globbing-wise to each
argument, I cannot agree that this is much of a problem, because 1) one
can always quote when in doubt, and 2) presumably you know the meaning
of the arguments you are passing to the command (if not, what do you
think you are doing?), and thus you know perfectly well what will be
done globbing-wise to these arguments, and 3) any doubt can be resolved
by asking the shell what IT thinks the context is. 
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw