Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch's file naming scheme is shell unfriendly

[Mikhael Goikhman]

On 17 Oct 2004 18:33:33 -0400, Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 04:55:09PM +0000, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > > I use bash, so I know this is true for it; perhaps the case is
> > > different with csh/tcsh.
> > 
> > The "csh/tcsh" argument is bogus, please try to be accurate here.
> 
> Are you _trying_ to stir up flames?

Nope, I am trying to be accurate. The "csh" argument was repeated several
times and it is not accurate. At least all main shells support the
convenient {substr1,substr2} syntax and it has a potential for conflicts.

> However, from what you've said, tcsh/csh actually _break_ commands
> containing {arch}, whereas bash simply has (slight) completion
> problems[*].  Gee, the former sounds rather worse than the latter...

This tcsh problem is fixed by adding quotes. This is as easy and as
incomprehensible for newbies as the numerous problems with other shells.

> > I don't agree these annoyances are minor for shell users willing to be
> > effective, and are compensated by any possible advantages.
> 
> "possible advantages"?  Do know the reasons why people like these
> conventions?  Have you read the wiki page?

I know the reasons and I actually use these conventions myself when I am
sure the user is unlikely to be harmed. I don't agree with the page that
arch _must_ use any of these conventions. I also don't agree with the
emotional part. This is like saying, we use emacs, you should use it too.
Trust us, you will get used to it and end up <bold>liking</bold> it.
This may or may not be true for particular individuals.

Regards,
Mikhael.