From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (root@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA11551 for <mason@werple.mira.net.au>; Thu, 23 May 1996 10:29:04 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id SAA14211; Wed, 22 May 1996 18:24:53 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 18:24:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199605222224.SAA15392@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.6 3/24/96
To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: BOURNE_SHELL_GLOB option 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 May 1996 22:17:11 BST."
             <23258.199605222117@stone.dcs.warwick.ac.uk> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 18:24:42 -0400
From: Richard Coleman <coleman@math.gatech.edu>
Resent-Message-ID: <"jepI42.0.zT3.qGven"@euclid>
Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/1139
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu

> >Here is the option I suggested.  I called it BOURNE_SHELL_GLOB.
> 
> Wouldn't SH_GLOB be a better name, matching the existing
> SH_WORD_SPLIT?  The option seems useful.
> 
> -zefram
> 

I have to agree.  The naming scheme should be kept as consistent
as possible.

rc