🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6878.26fe0ccf@vax1.tcd.ie> ecarroll@vax1.tcd.ie (Eddy Carroll) writes:
> > The subsequent version (v5.0k ?) will be 2.0 only, and will support links (if
> > they're actually "in there"), and will use the new file scanning calls, etc.
> > It will NOT perform wildcard expansion internally, but will leave that chore
> > up to the shell where it really belongs (IMO).  That is, it will NOT do so,
>
> Since (1) the current AmigaShell 2.0 doesn't support wildcard expansion on the
> command line (which I agree is a nice place to have it), and (2) AmigaDos 2.0
> has calls to do wildcard expansion for you, I'd argue quite strongly for
> leaving in wildcard support. Particularly since there are no 2.0-specific
> enhanced shells available as yet, to do the wild card expansion instead.

So I have been told.  One of the things that *didn't* make it "in there".

Sigh.


> My suggestion for 4.1 (4.0 is great, by the way) is a flag to say that the
> shell has done the wildcard expansion, so that I don't get a long listing
> when I do ls * in my shell (which is not yet sksh).

Thanks ... glad you like it!

Another possibility is seperate versions (read: heavily #ifdef'd code),
as I really *would* like to reduce the amount of "vestigial" code in the
binary.


I haven't decided on an implementation strategy yet, and probably won't
until 2.0 gets "frozen" (read: is generally available), as much of the 2.0
specific stuff could well change (are links in or not?, wildcard expansion,
etc).

In any case, rest assured that I won't leave AmigaShell users "out in the
cold" ...

/kim

-- 
UUCP:  kim@uts.amdahl.com   -OR-   ked01@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
  or:  {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim
DDD:   408-746-8462
USPS:  Amdahl Corp.  M/S 249,  1250 E. Arques Av,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086
BIX:   kdevaughn     GEnie:   K.DEVAUGHN     CIS:   76535,25