Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: arp CD command change???
Message-ID: <3439@sugar.uu.net>
Date: 16 Feb 89 03:19:07 GMT
References: <8902131846.AA21527@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> <35960@bbn.COM> <DEVEN.89Feb14055924@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston, TX
Lines: 33

In article <DEVEN.89Feb14055924@daniel.pawl.rpi.edu>, deven@pawl.rpi.edu (Deven Corzine) writes:
> I don't understand at all the objection to Unix wildcards.  Both the
> Bourne shell and C-Shell support somewhat more complex wildcards than
> the simple ? and * characters.  Certainly on par with AmigaDOS's
> wildcards.

Not so. You can't, in UNIX wildcards, specify "all .o or .s files starting
with "uk", "can", or "us", and an optional ".z". (the cshell bracket syntax
is not a wildcard syntax... it's expanded before the wildcards are applied).
On the Amiga you can specify:

	(uk|can|us)#?.(o|s)(|.z)

The cshell (but not the bourne shell) will allow:

	{uk,can,us}*.[os]{,.z}

But some results of {...,..} are surprising...

> In addition, the wildcards are expanded in the shell, and
> can therefore be used consistently, not just where the programmer
> decided to let you use wildcards.

This is nice, but an orthogonal issue.

> I strongly agree with the need for symlinks and hard links in
> AmigaDOS.  Hard links, at least.  As a point of note, Unix does NOT
> make a symbolic link to the parent directory under "..".  By no means.

Symlinks would be easier, I think.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva  `-_-'  Hackercorp.
...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net      'U`