Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:19:30 +0200 From: "Eli Zaretskii" Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Message-Id: <2427-Thu30Jan2003221929+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-reply-to: <3e394a9a.sandmann@clio.rice.edu> (message from Charles Sandmann on Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:54:02 CST) Subject: Re: Command line wildcard expansion under Win2K References: <3e394a9a DOT sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> 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 Precedence: bulk > From: Charles Sandmann > Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp > Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:54:02 CST > > "A.vec" exists (A upper case): > > C:\>djecho a*.vec A*.vec A*.VEC a*.VEC > a.vec A.vec A*.VEC a*.VEC (current behavior) > a.vec A.vec A.vec a.vec (intuitive behavior) On a Windows 98 system, I get: A.vec A.vec A*.VEC a*.VEC That is, "A.vec", the real file's name, matches itself and the all-lowercase "a*.vec", but not the others. This is ``case-sensitivity on LFN system except for all-lowercase patterns'' paradigm in action. > In other words, act as if you had passed these strings to the > "dir" command. > > "B.VEC" exists (all upper case): > > C:\>djecho b*.vec B*.vec b*.VEC B*.VEC > b.VEC B*.vec b*.VEC B.VEC (current behavior) > b.vec b.vec b.vec B.VEC (intuitive behavior) On my Windows 98, I get: b.vec B*.vec B.VEC b*.VEC What version of djecho did you use? Was it stock DJGPP v2.03 or something newer? > In other words, I think forcing an exact match on any upper case > characters is not intuitive - that all matches should be case > insensitive - at least as an option. I support such a behavior as an option, but I think that having that as the default is not a good idea. Think about interactive programs such as Bash and Emacs, which support file-name completion: there, if you type "Make TAB", you don't want to see a file "makefile" in the list of possible completions. > I think this behavior should be decoupled from FNCASE. Why? What function will be left with FNCASE, then?