Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!eecae!cps3xx!usenet
From: usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AmigaDos vs Unix wildcards/pathnames
Message-ID: <2247@cps3xx.UUCP>
Date: 17 Mar 89 21:01:16 GMT
References: <11135@ut-emx.UUCP> <5660038@hpcvca.HP.COM>
Reply-To: porkka@frith.UUCP (Joseph A Porkka)
Distribution: na
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 39

>> I don't think you'll get much argument on that one.  A standard library
>> routine would make all pattern matching consistent, and extend it's use
>> throughout the system, such as in file requesters.
>> Dave Haynie
>
>I prefer that the shell implement wild cards.  That way it is always
>consistent.  It also potentially makes the commands smaller.
>

Before CBM puts path name pattern stuff in a library or in a Shell
or whereever they end up putting
them, how about extending them a bit?

There are a few of options option missing that I have found would be very
nice to have namely an '&' and an exclusion operator
is exclusion, as in 'match everything but this'
For example: (^(Makefile))&[a-z]#?)
  this would match everything that is made of only letters, and is
  not 'Makefile'
There probly should be special treatment for directory names, so that
you can specify if the pattern should match directories,files or both.
While we're at it, how aobut matching file protection bits too?
and once you've done all that, you might as well add filedates also.

The file dates and protection bits specifications could concievably be
options only with a file requester.
If there is going to be a standard requester, there should be
a special pattern to tell the shell to pull up the requester and
then replace the commandline pattern with the results of the requester.

Please don't flame that this is too much, its just a wish list after
all.


In Real Life: Joe Porkka
porkka@frith.egr.msu
jap@syssun.cl.msu.edu  (35.8.1.1)
 
 Life is just a game, so relax and be happy.