Date:	Sat, 25 May 2002 11:24:29 +0300
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<2110-Sat25May2002112429+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<3CEE7DCE.BD8CACAE@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Fri, 24
	May 2002 19:00:56 GMT)
Subject:	Re: GNU Pascal (gpc) 2.1 released
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020523191611 DOT 3394B-100000 AT is> <3CED528D DOT 7DCF9660 AT yahoo DOT com> <3CED6BA6 DOT 48D4D0FE AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <ackpus$4e5$1 AT antares DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <200205241404 DOT g4OE4Qt03777 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <3CEE7DCE DOT BD8CACAE AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
> Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:00:56 GMT
> 
> Which means that "rm @foo" cannot mean to remove the file "@foo",
> because if it exists it is an extended command line, and if it
> doesn't it becomes an argument.  So, at least for rm, that usage
> makes no sense.

You assume that all arguments to `rm' are file names.  That is not
true.  While today none of the known non-file arguments can begin with
a @, that may change as rm is developed and maintained.

> BTW a thought occurs to me - if the @ mechanism is to effectively
> extend command lines, what is the effect of multiple @ in a single
> command, e.g. "rm @foo @bar"?

They are all expanded one by one, using the same code.

In other words, the startup code loops through all the arguments it
got from DOS, and processes each one with the code that expands
wildcards, reads response files, etc.

For details, see the file src/libc/crt0/c1args.c from djlsr203.zip.

- Raw text -