Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu!vkr From: vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: AmigaDos vs Unix wildcards/pathnames Summary: A contrary view Keywords: Amigados unix filesystem Message-ID: <1248@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> Date: 12 Mar 89 15:43:39 GMT References: <11135@ut-emx.UUCP> Reply-To: vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Vidhyanath K. Rao) Organization: Dept of Math, Ohio St U at Newark, Newark, OH 43055 Lines: 37 In article <11135@ut-emx.UUCP> mjl@ut-emx.UUCP (Maurice LeBrun) writes: >The postings on Unix vs Amigados path-names and wildcard characters in >the last month have been very interesting. From observing the various >arguments I came up with the following results: >wildcards winner: Unix [deleted stuff] > As far as wildcards go, the #? symbol is >irritating and the following is an atrocity: > >1> copy (*.c|*.h) t: (what's wrong with `cp *.c *.h t:' ??) The problem is not that #? is inferior, but that it is not implmented fully. I hope that CBM makes an arrangement with the ARP people and puts the Pattern-Matching and FindFirst/FindNext routines in a library that is part of the standard distribution [after fixing the bugs:-)]. If we had character classes, people would stop complaining about #?. It seems absurd because the # by itself has no real meaning right now. I go into contortions in nameing my files because I can't use character classes. If one had them, you will come to agree that #? is logical. There is nothing wrong with `cp *.c *.h t:'. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with `copy #?.c #?.h to t:' either, except that it is not implemented. [I just discovered that the ARP copy will not do what I expected. Why? It is trivial to add this functionality when you have arp.library and its `MULTIARGS' stuff.] -- It is the man, not the method, that Nath solves the problem. vkr@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu -Poincare. (614)-366-9341