idallen@watmath.UUCP (02/09/84)
The Shell should (at least) say "csh: filename: no permission".
I've wondered why all programs are expected to print their names
in their error messages, but the Shells have remained immune to criticism...
--
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterlooguy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/11/84)
> The Shell should (at least) say "csh: filename: no permission". > I've wondered why all programs are expected to print their names > in their error messages, but the Shells have remained immune to criticism... Arguably, the shell isn't a command, but a "meta-command", so if it encounters an error it should claim that the error message is coming from the command it is running (for instance, syntax errors give the name of the shell file it's executing). I make no claim as to whether this is right or wrong, but it seems to be the philosophy followed for at least the Bourne shell. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
idallen@watmath.UUCP (02/16/84)
Hmm. I think even the shell should print its name in the messages that
it gives. Though it is a "meta command", the text "filename: no
permission" looks just like the same text printed by so many other programs.
People won't always be running in the foreground programs that produce
error messages. The problem is worse when logged in to several
machines, or with commands that deal with files on several machines.
Ideally, if the program that generates the error message is the only one
running, no program name or machine name is needed. If more than one
program is running, the programs should print their names. If logged
in to more than one machine, programs should identify their machine too.
Now, how on earth can a program know the right thing to do?
--
-IAN! (Ian! D. Allen) University of Waterloo