bug-bash
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion


From: Chet Ramey
Subject: Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:08:10 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

On 8/20/19 3:38 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> In bashref.html and probably some other files in doc/, pathname
> expansion is referred to as filename expansion (see
> https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Filename-Expansion).
> In bash.1, it is pathame expansion.  Perhaps one of them should be
> corrected.

I prefer "pathname" and "pathname expansion" and would prefer to use those
everywhere. It's more consistent with other documentation, at least shell
documentation, and with POSIX.

However, at some point -- I can't find it now -- the GNU documentation
standards recommended using "filename" and "filename expansion," reserving
"pathname" for colon-separated values like $PATH.

As a result, I try to use "filename expansion" in the texinfo manual, and
"pathname expansion" in the man page. I'm not as good at using "filename"
instead of "pathname" in the texinfo manual, though.


-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    address@hidden    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]