Newsgroups: comp.arch
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!dgbt!don
From: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Subject: re: Globbing
Message-ID: <1991Feb21.204416.23369@dgbt.doc.ca>
Sender: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Organization: The Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 91 20:44:16 GMT

>In an article, dgbt.doc.ca!don (Donald McLachlan) writes:
>|1 remove globbing from the shell.
>|2 put in a library.
>|3 current shell programs would need to be updated (first thing they do
>|  is call glob(argc, argv), returning argc and argv updated (globbed)
>|4 New programs that want to glob can call glob.
>
>This has been discussed before, but briefly put, it would complicate code
>needlessly, and create even more of a maze of command syntax for the
>average user.  The one Good Thing about the shell globbing is that it is
>consistent; putting globbing in the tool itself would create an endless
>opportunity for inconsistency and confusion.  I would vote ``no'' on this one.
>
>Cheers,
>-- 
>Michael Stefanik, MGI Inc., Los Angeles| Opinions stated are not even my own.
>Title of the week: Systems Engineer    | UUCP: ...!uunet!bria!mike
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Remember folks: If you can't flame MS-DOS, then what _can_ you flame?
>

Sorry, a typo of mine may have made my idea sound less consistant than I
intended. What I wanted 2) to say was to put globbing into a standard
library, so that aside from the rare cases like "rename *.pas *.p" all
globbing would still be "psuedo standard".

Now I mentioned this not because I think doing this is the ultimate answer,
but it would allow someone to implement their favorite rename command. That
is what prompted me to post originally.

Don McL

