Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!steinmetz!dawn!stpeters From: stpeters@dawn.steinmetz (Dick St.Peters) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: shell globbing universal ????? Message-ID: <8112@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> Date: Sat, 5-Dec-87 15:33:22 EST Article-I.D.: steinmet.8112 Posted: Sat Dec 5 15:33:22 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 10-Dec-87 20:09:19 EST References: <14107@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <6793@brl-smoke.ARPA> Sender: root@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP Reply-To: dawn!stpeters@steinmetz.UUCP (Dick St.Peters) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 20 In article <6793@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) writes: >In article <14107@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Java Man) writes: >>o 204% dd if=g* >>o 205% set if=g* [deleted] >All this shows is that "dd" ought to be fixed and the Cshell should >be stamped out.. Hell, no! "Fixing" dd would break an awful lot of scripts, and it's shell chauvinism that ought to be stamped out. Flexibility of the user interface, including a choice of shells (and the freedom to write your own if you want) is part of what makes UNIX great. I may not agree with your choice of shells, but I will defend your right to use it. (For those unfamiliar with csh, "set if = g*" works just fine.) -- Dick St.Peters GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@ge-crd.arpa uunet!steinmetz!stpeters