Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:10:28 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Chris Croughton <crough45 AT amc DOT de>
cc: mdruiter AT cs DOT vu DOT nl, djgpp AT delorie DOT com, Daisuke Aoyama <jack AT st DOT rim DOT or DOT jp>
Subject: Re: (Another) BASH-bug? Or feature? 
In-Reply-To: <97May28.142340gmt+0100.16647@internet01.amc.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970528165756.14855E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 28 May 1997, Chris Croughton wrote:

> That seems to be correct to me.  Granted that DOS isn't case-sensitive,
> but bash and ls are Unix utilities and so are likely to differentiate.

Microsoft made it exceedingly hard to treat this issue in a simple and
obvious manner if you need to be compatible to Unix shell scripts and
Makefiles.  There is no single ``correct'' way to do this, so this is
really a matter of opinion (and was discussed a lot during beta testing of
DJGPP v2.01).  However, since the DJGPP wildcard expansion is
case-sensitive only on Windows 95 (and even then not *entireley*
case-sensitive, see the libc docs for the `glob' function), I think the
port of Bash should do the same, so that programs behave the same when
called from Bash as when called other shells.  I'd guess that Bash just 
needs to use `glob' from the DJGPP library instead of the GNU version.

> The gcc port is also case-sensitive

And how many times did you see a message here from a user complaining that
"GCC FILENAME.C" doesn't work?