Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!rose!ccplumb
From: ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: shell architecture (to glob or not to glob)
Message-ID: <1991Mar5.171819.10543@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1991Jan14.013815.11419@ims.alaska.edu> <11314@lanl.gov> <KENW.91Feb25170431@skyler.arc.ab.ca> <0IS9YFC@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1991 17:18:19 GMT
Lines: 19

 > In article <KENW.91Feb25170431@skyler.arc.ab.ca>, kenw@skyler.arc.ab.ca (Ken Wallewein) writes:
 >>   As a trivial but amusing example, the other day I had a file whose name
 >> started with '-'.  There was no way to tell programs which expects shell
 >> globbing that "this is not a command option; this is a filename".

peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
 >
 >	command options-and-arguments -- filenames-only
 >
 > If the command wasn't written to support this syntax, blame that
 > particular program: this has been a standard for years. There are badly
 > written programs in program-does-globbing systems too.

Actually, I find that 'command ./filename' works very well, and does
not require much intelligence in the command's option parsing.  Yes, "--"
is a standard and should probably be supported, but I've never seen the
need unless you use options that can begin with "." or "/".
-- 
	-Colin
