[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PATHNAME-WILD (version 5)
- To: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>, Gray@Kelvin.csc.ti.com
- Subject: Re: Issue: PATHNAME-WILD (version 5)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 89 10:56 EDT
- Cc: Sandra J Loosemore <email@example.com>, CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <2822684717-5627457@Kelvin>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 89 18:05:17 CDT
From: David N Gray <Gray@DSG.csc.ti.com>
> The Explorer permits DELETE-FILE on a wild pathname, meaning to delete
> all files that match.
> I don't think this should be a mandated feature, but we can add it to current
> practice. Do you think this feature of the Explorer is good or a wart? I.e.
> would you like the proposal to say that the consequences are unspecified, or
> would you like the proposal to require the Explorer to change?
I think it's a useful feature (especially on a Lisp Machine where Lisp
is the operating system command language); I'd prefer "consequences
are unspecified" so that this would be a permissible extension.