Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: An odd difference between "cat file" and "cat<file"
Message-ID: <367@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Apr-84 17:52:33 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.367
Posted: Fri Apr 13 17:52:33 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Apr-84 09:20:32 EST
References: <3723@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 20

<in>out

I just stepped in a curious one - "sh", at least here, under 4.2, doesn't
expand wildcards in the "word" following > or < .  Why would I care?  I'm
a lazy typist; I was reaching down about three levels for a file and used a
wildcard with an indirection.  It didn't work.  Example:  suppose that
	ibble/gleep/farkle
exists, and that a unique wildcarding of it is
	ib*/gl*/f*
Then,	cat ib*/gl*/f*
will list the file but
	cat <ib*/gl*/f*
gives	ib*/gl*/f*: no such file or directory

(BTW, did I miss some fine print?  Be this buglet or featurette?  I notice
that sh will do expansions in, say, "cd" where it needs a single filename
which is known to exist.)
-- 
"A friend of the devil is a friend of mine."		Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd				(303) 444-5710 x3086