[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
