Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsh!twb
From: twb@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.w.beattie)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: v10i256: ls, great ls for DOS or OS/2 (part 01/02)
Keywords: ls, OS/2
Message-ID: <1991Mar25.191951.3590@cbnewsh.att.com>
Date: 25 Mar 91 19:19:51 GMT
References: <3432@sixhub.UUCP> <1991Mar19.212356.18971@cbnewsh.att.com> <3486@sixhub.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 33

In article <3486@sixhub.UUCP> davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <1991Mar19.212356.18971@cbnewsh.att.com> twb@cbnewsh.att.com (thomas.w.beattie) writes:
>
>| This version of ls doesn't handle the DOS SWITCHAR at all.
>| It insists on options (flags, switches) being introduced by a hyphen.
>
> a) the intro says it's compatible with UNIX V.3.2 ls, which uses
>hyphens, forward slashes, and does not use SWITCHAR.

So what?  It is still desirable to be compatible with the environment the
utility will be USED in.  This deficiency should at least be mentioned in the
review, but apparently there is no independent review.

>| >Reviewed by gupta!few@sun.com, (author):
>| 
>| Reviewed by the author??
>| What good is that??
>
>  Who better knows what the program does? If every submission came with
>a useful and truthful description of the program, I'd just try the
>program and not have to write the reviews on any of them.

Do you get a lot of submissions with no description of what they do?
No docs at all?

I thought the review process included evaluating the performance and utility
of the submission.  Since when are authors the best source of "a useful and
truthful description of the program."

---
Tom Beattie
att!hoqaa!twb
t.w.beattie@att.com