Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!enea!tut!utacs!av
From: av@utacs.UTA.FI (Arto Viitanen)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: WILDCARD
Keywords: wildcard
Message-ID: <546@utacs.UTA.FI>
Date: 31 Jul 88 12:15:57 GMT
References: <11675@steinmetz.ge.com> <1622@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Reply-To: av@utacs.UUCP (Arto Viitanen)
Organization: University of Tampere, Dept. of Computer Science, Finland
Lines: 23

In article <1622@dataio.Data-IO.COM> bright@Data-IO.COM.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright) writes:
>In article <11675@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
><  for %n in (*.c) do beautify %n
>
>Yeah, but I prefer wildcard because the syntax is easier to remember,
>and a lot less typing.

I have not read the source of the program, but with my own similar program
I had some problems, what ``for'' command does not have.

When I used my program (called do) to unpack ARC-files taken from net using
command line

	do *.arc pkxarc ^1

first archivefile was handled ok, but after that system hang up. Finally I
found the reason: ``do'' used DOS's FINDFIRST-function to parse wildcard
and executed pxarc with first matching filename. But pkxarc created
several new files, so directory no more matched the parsed wildcard, so
next FINDNEXT-function searched for file, which wasn't in same place in
directory, as it was with FINDFIRST.

With ``for'' command, there is no such problems.