An odd difference between "cat file" and "cat<file"
Dick Dunn
rcd at opus.UUCP
Sat Apr 14 08:52:33 AEST 1984
<in>out
I just stepped in a curious one - "sh", at least here, under 4.2, doesn't
expand wildcards in the "word" following > or < . Why would I care? I'm
a lazy typist; I was reaching down about three levels for a file and used a
wildcard with an indirection. It didn't work. Example: suppose that
ibble/gleep/farkle
exists, and that a unique wildcarding of it is
ib*/gl*/f*
Then, cat ib*/gl*/f*
will list the file but
cat <ib*/gl*/f*
gives ib*/gl*/f*: no such file or directory
(BTW, did I miss some fine print? Be this buglet or featurette? I notice
that sh will do expansions in, say, "cd" where it needs a single filename
which is known to exist.)
--
"A friend of the devil is a friend of mine." Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303) 444-5710 x3086
More information about the Comp.unix
mailing list