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

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15328 > 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 Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com> - 2019-08-20 16:30 +0100

#15328 — Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion

2019-08-20 16:15:42 +0100, Stephane Chazelas:
[...]
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/GNU-Manuals.html#GNU-Manuals
> 
> GNU> Please do not use the term “pathname” that is used in Unix
> GNU> documentation; use “file name” (two words) instead. We use the
> GNU> term “path” only for search paths, which are lists of directory
> GNU> names. 
> 
> So I guess that should be "file name expansion"
> 
> That's probably not the right place to argue whether that GNU
> recommendations makes sense, but note that the FTP RFC (1985
> https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc959.txt, so predates POSIX if not
> the GNU project) defines pathname as
[...]

Actually, Unix V1 in 1970 already used "pathname" for that, long
before the concept of the environment (let alone $PATH) was
introduced.

I don't know why rms insists on using "file name" here which at
best is ambiguous.

See
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2009-11/msg00003.html
and rms response:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2009-11/msg00005.html

See also "filename generation" or "globbing" which avoid the
potential confusion with ~user and <(...) which also are
"pathname expansion" operators.

-- 
Stephane

[toc] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web