🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <682@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
>In article <392@icebox.nsc.com> waggoner@dtg.nsc.com (I) write:
>>
>>The only reason I can see for doing shell expansions is to provide a
>>unix-like environment, which means you also need a bunch of unix-like
>>commands that expect the wildcards to be expanded.
>
>The problems with that are:
... valid problem # 1

>	2) No, you don't need "unix-like commands". Essentially all
>	   reasonable utilities support a command line list of files.
>	   Even if they support wildcards, they will not object to
>	   what appears to be a wildcard-free list of filenames typed
>	   by hand.

... more valid problems.

Most AmigaDOS standard commands do not support a list of filenames
very well.  They should, but they don't.



>So, no, it's not just to provide a Unix-like environment. It's because
>it's smart. The only (arguably) better way is to provide the facility
>in a *standard* system library (ARP may reach this status but it ain't
>there yet). This makes it a little less universal, in that some boneheads
>will still write programs that don't *use* the system facility (as
>previously established on all the O.S.'s that do this). But it gets
>around the limited expansion space problem.
>
>It also potentially allows wildcards to be used even in e.g. requesters,
>which the shell approach does not.
>
>If I misunderstood you, and we're in violent agreement on this :-),
>my apologies.

Well, we're in violent near agreement.  I agree that shell wildcard
expansions are smart and I also think that a STANDARD system library
that included expansions would be better.  Perhaps I overstated my 
original claim at the beginning of this message.  The problem I do see
is that most STANDARD AmigaDOS commands do NOT support a list of
filenames as arguments and expanding the wildcards in the shell breaks
them.  Yes, I know you can inhibit the substitution with the right
combination of quotes and magic, but then I have to remember which
commands support multiple file arguments and which do not.  Blech.

Ideally, I would like to see a wildcard expansion library call AND
have the commands support multiple file arguments.  I'd rather
be able to type: (Substitute * for #? if you like).
  Copy #?.c #?.o otherdir
than:
  Copy (#?.c|#?.o) otherdir

and have copy expand #?.c and #?.o.  (I think this is a real example,
though I can't try it right now to see).




-- 
Mark Waggoner  Santa Clara, CA    (408) 721-6306         waggoner@dtg.nsc.com 
 Unofficially representing National Semiconductor Local Area Networks Group
                   Officially misrepresenting myself.