Xref: utzoo comp.os.misc:323 comp.unix.wizards:5570 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!rochester!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!ucbvax!bostic From: bostic@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Keith Bostic) Newsgroups: comp.os.misc,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Command interfaces Message-ID: <22122@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 9 Dec 87 17:38:19 GMT References: <1257@boulder.Colorado.EDU> <6840002@hpcllmv.HP.COM> <9555@mimsy.UUCP> <5565@oberon.USC.EDU> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 36 In article <5565@oberon.USC.EDU>, blarson@skat.usc.edu (Bob Larson) writes: > For example, how would you do the equivelent of this in unix: > > cmpf *>old>@@.(c,h) == -report ==.+cmpf -file > > (Explanation: compare all files in the old sub-directory ending in .c or > .h with the file of the same name in the current directory, and put > the output in the file of the same name with .cmpf appended. Non-files > (directories and segment directories) ending in .c or .h are ignored. OK: for i in *.[ch]; do > if [ -f $i ] ; then > cmp $i old/$i > $i.cmpf > fi > done Note, the above construct has, potentially, far more power than you needed. Now, if you wish to argue that it's not a "command-line" interface, I would agree. And my response would be, in that case, that one of that complexity/ power is unncessary when you can have real programming interfaces. Incidentally, you *can* put it on a single line... > After several years of using primos, it is clear to me the unix way of > handling wildcards is much less powerfull. Depends how you delimit "wildcards". I think I disagree. > It is clear to me that power, ease of use, etc. have almost no > relation to how operating systems are chosen anyway. Chosen by whom? If marketing was all it took, we'd all be running you-know-what. --keith