Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BartlebyScrivener wrote:
> The tough part on Windows (for the Linux/Unix/*ix bigots) is that
> each program scans the command line that invoked it in its own
> inimitable way. This is not really the fault of the windows command
> line processor; this comes from allowing flexibility to individual
> programs.
If you mean what I think you mean, I'd say it's the fault of
Windows. I don't do much Windows, and no Windows-specific development,
so maybe this has been fixed since I last checkd on it.
I consider Unix shells to be less than good as command line
processors. Yes, they have lots of really spiffy features, but most of
them just aren't very bright when it comes to being a command line
processor.
zsh is the only exception I know about, but that requires someone
familiar with both zsh and the command in question to teach zsh about
each individual command in a language that looks like line noise in
places, and adds a level of indirection to all your commands. And
that's for the easy cases.
A good command processor provides an API so that commands can tell the
command processor about their arguments, allowing the command
processor to do completion on flags or command words, to complete
arguments and do pattern matching against the appropriate universe,
instead of just against file names, and so on.
Windows seems to have APIs for nearly everything. Is there one like I
described above?
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
