From: Dimitri M. <dm...@bm...> - 2004-07-06 16:21:02
|
On Jul 6, 2004, at 1:18 AM, Randall R Schulz wrote: > Dmitri, > > Your understanding of Unix command line processing is superficial and > flawed. I'm afraid it's your reading comprehension skills that are flawed. Ls and echo are equivalent only for the case of "ls *" vs. "echo *". If you read me message carefully, you'll notice that I never mentioned "ls -l" etfc. Ls is a built-in in (at least some) shells. Why? -- because you have to have opendir(); readdir() in a loop to do filename globbing. Opendir(); readdir() is what ls does. If you don't believe me, go read the fine code. What I really don't get is where TF did you see me write that DOS way is superior? They both suck, I think it's pretty clear. Any programmer with half a clue would put regexp matcher into a standard shared library and have both ls and shell call it when they need it. Of course, one wouldn't expect M$ programmers to have many clues; as for unix, it was designed for computers that Mr. Spock called "primitive": ones that look like a roomful of walk-in fridges. So whaddya expect... FOAD, HAND. Dima |