From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,447a948bb64464c3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-15 21:37:57 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!demos1!glas!demos1!watnews1.watson.ibm.c!watson.ibm.com!ncohen From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 15 Oct 94 19:52 GMT+0300 Subject: Re: I have a question... Message-ID: <37mtda$cp3@watnews1.watson.ibm.c> References: <1994Oct07.034523.161470@zeus.aix> Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway Date: 1994-10-15T19:52:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery) writes: |> >I should say that if a UNIX program needs to ask the user for a file |> >name, something must be wrong with its design. |> |> Some Unix programs are filters. They read standard input, and write |> to standard output. This is a SMALL SUBSET of Unix programs. |> Compilers, for instance, may well ask for a filename if the user |> provides no filename on the command line. Thus this assertion (that a |> Unix program that has to ask for a filename is 'bad') is not valid. Indeed. For example, a text editor may support commands to insert a given file in the current editing buffer, write all or part of the current editing buffer to a file, or open a new buffer and read some file into it. It is a real pain if the user can't use symbols like ~ in such commands, so the editor ought to expand the file names in such commands. -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com