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? :-)