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

Groups > gnu.bash.bug > #15326

Re: Pathname expansion vs. filename expansion

Show all headers | View raw

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/

Back to gnu.bash.bug | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web