ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Petheram <pethe...@acm.org>
Subject Re: Objections against advanced directory scanning
Date Wed, 02 Feb 2000 16:28:35 GMT

rubys@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Bill Petheram wrote:
>
> > Well I didn't realise that you weren't going to use regular expressions.
> If
> > you had said that initially then we could have saved a lot of e-mails.
> >
> > 'Regular Expressions are too difficult for ordinary users'. It seems to
> me
> > that you aren't expecting many Unix people to use ant.
>
> Now, now.  Play nice.
>
> Suppose somebody where to propose changing the "ls" command so that from
> now on you would need to type
>
>    ls .*\.class
>

This is a regular expression

>
> instead of
>
>    ls *.class

This is shell syntax

>
>
> as you do today.  Would you think most Unix users would think of the
> change?
>
> > 'the '**' feature it is exaclty what most users find natural.'  Most
> ordinary
> > non Unix users you mean.
>
> I know of no system, Unix or otherwise, that supports "**", so that's bad.
> The question is what is the most minimal extension to what essentially is
> the syntax supported by the Unix ls command (which incidentally is
> remarkably similar to syntax supported by the DOS dir command) to meet the
> basic needs of ant

>
>
> Arnout has proposed "**".  Constructive suggestions for alternatives are
> welcome.
>
> - Sam Ruby

Any suggestion as long as it is not regular expressions.

bill



Mime
View raw message