🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WWC.89Jul12082231@boole.ece.wisc.edu> wwc@boole.ece.wisc.edu (William W. Carlson) writes:

? Whenever globbing fails (i.e. no match), it leaves the
? unglobbed string as is.  (i.e. if I type "ls foo* bar*" and there is a
? file in the current directory called foo.c but none starting with
? "bar", ls gets passed "ls foo.c bar*" and of course says "bar* not
? found."  This feature is particularly disturbing in aliases.  Do
? people think this is a "bug" or a "feature"?  If it is a bug, I'd
? really like it fixed.  If it is a feature, I'd like for there to be
? some way (perhaps set -no_bogus_globbing) to disable it.


This is because (all together now) BASH IS NOT CSH! It is a
POSIX-style/Bourne Shell clone.  Bourne-style shells leave a word
unchanged if it expands into nothing. 

I vote to keep it, in the interest of sh compatibility.

Chet


Chet Ramey			"We are preparing to think about contemplating 
Network Services Group, CWRU	 preliminary work on plans to develop a
chet@cwjcc.INS.CWRU.Edu		 schedule for producing the 10th Edition of 
				 the Unix Programmers Manual." -- Andrew Hume