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