Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!texbell!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: aliases and RUN
Message-ID: <3002@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 18 Nov 88 11:59:49 GMT
References: <8811161827.AA28304@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 33

In article <8811161827.AA28304@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>, dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes:
  [Me: talking about calling programs]
> :UNIX breaks the command line up into a bunch of argument strings (argv), does
> :wildcard expansion, etc.

> 	Er, no.  The OS does not break it up or do wildcard expansion.  The
> unix shell (CSH) does all of this and passes an argv list to exec[*]().  The
> UNIX OS has no idea how to break up command lines and doesn't care.

Well, OK. This is a bit of a nit. Besides, the UNIX shell is the Bourne shell.
How about doing a 's/UNIX/UNIX shells (CSH or SH)/g' if it offends?

> 	If you use a CLI, no wildcard expansion is done.  If you use a 
> shell (hint hint), wildcard expansion IS done.

The CLI is just a shell. The Workbench is just a shell. Your CSH-like shell
is just a shell. Anyway... if you use the CLI then wildcard expansion may
still be done... but by the program. If you use a UNIXy shell it will be done
by the shell, but it might be truncated by the program.

> >As I envision it, this wouldn't be a problem because the default environment
> >would be a shell that uses the workbench model to spawn tasks.

> 	If it could be 'standardized' for argc/argv programs and if we *remove*
> the other two ways to pass arguments...

Yes, wouldn't it be luvverly. And it can be done without Commodore being
involved... all we need is a WB shell.
-- 
		    Peter da Silva  `-_-'  peter@sugar.uu.net
		     Have you hugged  U  your wolf today?

	      Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn business.