Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15326 > unrolled thread

Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion

Back to article view | Back to gnu.bash.bug

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> - 2019-08-20 10:08 -0400

#15326 — Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion

On 8/20/19 3:38 AM, konsolebox wrote:
> In bashref.html and probably some other files in doc/, pathname
> expansion is referred to as filename expansion (see
> https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Filename-Expansion).
> In bash.1, it is pathame expansion.  Perhaps one of them should be
> corrected.

I prefer "pathname" and "pathname expansion" and would prefer to use those
everywhere. It's more consistent with other documentation, at least shell
documentation, and with POSIX.

However, at some point -- I can't find it now -- the GNU documentation
standards recommended using "filename" and "filename expansion," reserving
"pathname" for colon-separated values like $PATH.

As a result, I try to use "filename expansion" in the texinfo manual, and
"pathname expansion" in the man page. I'm not as good at using "filename"
instead of "pathname" in the texinfo manual, though.


-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | gnu.bash.bug

csiph-web