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