Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!oberon!skat.usc.edu!blarson
From: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: on shells and os features
Keywords: shell, wildcard
Message-ID: <14631@oberon.USC.EDU>
Date: 12 Jan 89 20:13:43 GMT
References: <28200249@mcdurb> <451@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <1951@scolex> <1121@raspail.UUCP> <2618@ficc.uu.net> <5657@cbmvax.UUCP> <4205@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@oberon.USC.EDU
Reply-To: blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson)
Organization: USC AIS, Los Angeles
Lines: 24

In article <4205@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes:
>In article <5657@cbmvax.UUCP>, jesup@cbmvax (Randell Jesup) writes:
>>	You're talking shells, not "Unix".  It should be possible to write
>>a shell for almost any usable computer, a shell that does wildcarding 
>>ala Unix.

>Correct, of course.  But consider this: standard features affect how
>utilities will be designed and used.  Most unix programs expect to
>take a list of items on the command line. If you put a unix style
>shell on VM/CMS, say, you will also have to replace lots of utilities,
>like LISTFILES.

If most programs expect single file names, wildcards ala primos would
probably be more approprate than wildcards ala unix.  Prime had exactly
this problem when they decided to implement wildcards, so their
command processor involkes the program on each file separatly.
(If the new linker is used, passing the wildcard to the program
for expantion may be specified.)

-- 
Bob Larson	Arpa: Blarson@Ecla.Usc.Edu	blarson@skat.usc.edu
Uucp: {sdcrdcf,cit-vax}!oberon!skat!blarson
Prime mailing list:	info-prime-request%ais1@ecla.usc.edu
			oberon!ais1!info-prime-request