Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!jade!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Pattern Matching & documentation
Message-ID: <1877@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10-Dec-86 07:17:12 EST
Article-I.D.: jade.1877
Posted: Wed Dec 10 07:17:12 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 11:29:12 EST
References: <954@blia.BLI.COM> <1731@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: usenet@jade.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (Don't have strength to leave) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 46

In article <839@ulowell.UUCP> page@ulowell.UUCP (Bob Page) writes:
>mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike Meyer) wrote:
>> ... AmigaDOS (since nothing uses the rwx bits yet) ...
>
>Um, don't muck around with these bits, OK?  And don't assume that
>nobody will ever use them, either.  And btw, it's rwxd, even though
>the d is useless if the w is on.

I'm not going to. But that would be the easiest way to testbed the
thing. I think that approach is wrong, anyway.

>>Right idea, but not quite done right. The routine belongs in a shared
>>library, not in the OS
>
>Since this discussion is about shell vs application wildcard expansion,
>I'll put in my two cents: the shell should do it unless the USER says
>not to.  For the most part, it won't matter either way, but if the
>shell does it, the interface is CONSISTENT.

Consistent, yes? Best - I don't think so. It forces uglyness on things
that want some args globbed, and some not globbed. It also breaks if
you use a dd-like interface.

>Escaping the wildcard characters and/or using some magic like `noglob'
>is acceptable .. use an alias if you use the command like that all
>the time.  (You _are_ using a shell that understand aliases, right?)

I don't think so. Ugly is ugly, and having to explain aliases to even
a sophisticated user who's unfamiliar with the system is a pain. Try
explaining the VMS alias facility to a Unix wizard, for instance.

Also, that STILL doesn't solve the problem of wanting to glob against
things other than files. Am I the only one that cares about that? Are
the proponents of shell globbing not able to provide an answer?

Oh, yeah - there's always the VMS approach. It gives what is by FAR
the nicest user interface, but requires the most work for the command
installer. Each command has a description of it's arguments hidden in
a file somewhere, and the command processor (DCL) checks that. Prompts
for missing arguments, globbing against apropriate universes,
type-checking on arguments; ALL provided by DCL! Carried to extremes,
you even get auto-completion on arguments.

Anyone want to do a DCL-like shell for AmigaDOS? :-)