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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #99080

Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ??

From Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ??
Date 2016-12-12 08:58 -0800
Organization None to speak of
Message-ID <lnd1gxrsn9.fsf@kst-u.example.com> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <o2kq0g$34c$1@dont-email.me> <o2ksfc$fvo$1@dont-email.me> <o2kst0$h2v$1@dont-email.me> <lnh969svc5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <o2m2rv$dkk$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/12/2016 03:02, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
>>> What you seem to be saying is, it's OK because people just have to make
>>> sure they accidentally type '*' instead! That would be very considerate
>>> of them...
>>
>> I'm not sure what point you're making,
>
> The point is clear enough, surely?
>
> If everyone reads the specification and types in exactly what is 
> expected, then a verification program discussed in the OP is unnecessary.
>
> But if there is the possibility that bad inputs can be given, then it 
> will be possible that someone could, either inadvertently, accidentally 
> or maliciously, type * - without quotes or an escape - and fool the 
> program that it has to be given valid input.
>
> Under those circumstances, you can't 'get around' the problem. Lew 
> should just have said:
>
>  > Yup.  That's the way it is.

I agree.  Turning off file globbing in the shell before running a
program is not, in my opinion, a reasonable thing to do.  Experienced
shell users will be unwilling to do it (except perhaps in a test
script), and inexperienced shell users will likely be confused by it.
If you want to pass a literal "*" to a program, quote it.

Bottom line: Assuming file globbing is enabled, typing
    ./program *
is exactly the same as typing
    ./program file1.txt file2.dat file3.foo
with a manually typed list of the names of all the files in the
current directory.  (I'm glossing over some details.)  If that's going
to create problems, don't type that.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 07:56 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:47 +0000
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 09:16 -0800
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 09:26 -0800
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 19:05 +0000
          Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:15 -0800
            Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:53 -0800
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 20:03 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 12:26 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 12:33 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 20:33 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 12:35 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 16:06 -0500
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:11 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:20 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:25 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 21:32 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:44 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 13:47 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 21:56 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:04 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:07 +0100
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:15 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:32 +0100
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 14:42 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:52 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 14:40 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 14:55 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:44 -0500
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:20 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 15:28 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:28 -0800
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 18:57 +0000
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-11 10:04 -0800
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:25 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 18:29 +0000
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 11:25 -0800
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-11 20:30 +0000
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-11 23:43 +0000
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-11 19:02 -0500
          Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-11 19:13 -0500
            Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 00:55 +0000
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 01:02 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-11 19:02 -0800
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 11:50 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:46 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 14:43 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 22:09 +0000
                Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 08:58 -0800
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-12-11 20:06 -0500
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 17:37 -0800
              Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0800
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:47 +0000
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 15:11 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:25 -0800
  Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:27 -0800
    Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-12 01:01 -0800
      Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Dexterr <dejangru@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 09:42 -0800
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:58 -0500
        Re: [command line arguments] more elegant solution ?? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-12-12 14:18 -0800

csiph-web