Xref: utzoo comp.os.misc:327 comp.unix.wizards:5612 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!chinet!ignatz From: ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Command interfaces Message-ID: <1962@chinet.UUCP> Date: 10 Dec 87 16:56:48 GMT References: <1257@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <6840002@hpcllmv.HP.COM> <9555@mimsy.UUCP> <798@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> <432@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <3161@psuvax1.psu.edu> <5565@oberon.USC.EDU> <3167@psuvax1.psu.edu> Reply-To: ignatz@homebru.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) Organization: Analysts International Corporation Lines: 21 This is a little annoying. First, I doubt the PR1MOS CLI can handle general wildcards in as flexible a manner as sh or ksh; you can truly construct some bizarre patterns, if you wish. But the second part of my annoyance is that you *don't* want an expression that rivals the sendmail syntax for complexity and illegibility; the example given does, and I know I could come up with some that are worse for the shell using wildcards, negation, and alternates. Finally, the keynote is that this is another religious argument, akin to the question "My {OS | editor | machine } is better than *, because..." Nobody is ever going to either definitively answer the argument, nor are we going to convince somebody that X really *is* better than Y, and sell their box that runs Y to buy an X box. If a discussion of what should *be put into* a CLI--what features should be cross-implemented--should spring up, fine. But "my CLI's better than your CLI" is boring; I've heard it all before over vi vs. emacs, BSD vs SysX, etc. -- Dave Ihnat ihnp4!homebru!ignatz || ihnp4!chinet!ignatz (w) (312) 882-4673