How is the wildcard * interpreted as a command?












3















I know how * is interpreted in commands like ls for example. But when trying to run * as a command the shell tries to execute the first file or directory in your working directory. Why is this? How does the shell understand *?






bash wildcards







share|improve this question









New contributor




osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    3















    I know how * is interpreted in commands like ls for example. But when trying to run * as a command the shell tries to execute the first file or directory in your working directory. Why is this? How does the shell understand *?






    bash wildcards







    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      3












      3








      3








      I know how * is interpreted in commands like ls for example. But when trying to run * as a command the shell tries to execute the first file or directory in your working directory. Why is this? How does the shell understand *?






      bash wildcards







      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I know how * is interpreted in commands like ls for example. But when trying to run * as a command the shell tries to execute the first file or directory in your working directory. Why is this? How does the shell understand *?






      bash wildcards




      bash wildcards






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 8 hours ago









      Glorfindel

      2991411




      2991411






      New contributor




      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 9 hours ago









      osmakosmak

      183




      183




      New contributor




      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      osmak is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8














          Unlike in some other operating systems, in Unixes, it's the shell that expands filename wildcards. It expands parameter expansions and globs first, then uses the (now) first word as the name for the command to run.



          This is also why files named with a leading dash can be troublesome: a glob like * will expand to the file names, and a name starting with a dash may be taken as an option. (The scary example being that a file called -r in the working directory would make rm * remove everything recursively...)



          Usually, one wouldn't use * as the first item on any command line, though, so having the first file determine the command to run in that case isn't likely to cause problems.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

            – Michael Homer
            9 hours ago











          • OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

            – osmak
            9 hours ago











          • @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

            – ilkkachu
            8 hours ago











          • @osmak That is a correct understanding.

            – Kusalananda
            8 hours ago






          • 2





            A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

            – Monty Harder
            6 hours ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "106"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });






          osmak is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f505707%2fhow-is-the-wildcard-interpreted-as-a-command%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8














          Unlike in some other operating systems, in Unixes, it's the shell that expands filename wildcards. It expands parameter expansions and globs first, then uses the (now) first word as the name for the command to run.



          This is also why files named with a leading dash can be troublesome: a glob like * will expand to the file names, and a name starting with a dash may be taken as an option. (The scary example being that a file called -r in the working directory would make rm * remove everything recursively...)



          Usually, one wouldn't use * as the first item on any command line, though, so having the first file determine the command to run in that case isn't likely to cause problems.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

            – Michael Homer
            9 hours ago











          • OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

            – osmak
            9 hours ago











          • @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

            – ilkkachu
            8 hours ago











          • @osmak That is a correct understanding.

            – Kusalananda
            8 hours ago






          • 2





            A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

            – Monty Harder
            6 hours ago
















          8














          Unlike in some other operating systems, in Unixes, it's the shell that expands filename wildcards. It expands parameter expansions and globs first, then uses the (now) first word as the name for the command to run.



          This is also why files named with a leading dash can be troublesome: a glob like * will expand to the file names, and a name starting with a dash may be taken as an option. (The scary example being that a file called -r in the working directory would make rm * remove everything recursively...)



          Usually, one wouldn't use * as the first item on any command line, though, so having the first file determine the command to run in that case isn't likely to cause problems.






          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

            – Michael Homer
            9 hours ago











          • OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

            – osmak
            9 hours ago











          • @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

            – ilkkachu
            8 hours ago











          • @osmak That is a correct understanding.

            – Kusalananda
            8 hours ago






          • 2





            A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

            – Monty Harder
            6 hours ago














          8












          8








          8







          Unlike in some other operating systems, in Unixes, it's the shell that expands filename wildcards. It expands parameter expansions and globs first, then uses the (now) first word as the name for the command to run.



          This is also why files named with a leading dash can be troublesome: a glob like * will expand to the file names, and a name starting with a dash may be taken as an option. (The scary example being that a file called -r in the working directory would make rm * remove everything recursively...)



          Usually, one wouldn't use * as the first item on any command line, though, so having the first file determine the command to run in that case isn't likely to cause problems.






          share|improve this answer















          Unlike in some other operating systems, in Unixes, it's the shell that expands filename wildcards. It expands parameter expansions and globs first, then uses the (now) first word as the name for the command to run.



          This is also why files named with a leading dash can be troublesome: a glob like * will expand to the file names, and a name starting with a dash may be taken as an option. (The scary example being that a file called -r in the working directory would make rm * remove everything recursively...)



          Usually, one wouldn't use * as the first item on any command line, though, so having the first file determine the command to run in that case isn't likely to cause problems.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 6 hours ago









          DarkHeart

          3,52632340




          3,52632340










          answered 9 hours ago









          ilkkachuilkkachu

          60.9k1098174




          60.9k1098174








          • 1





            I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

            – Michael Homer
            9 hours ago











          • OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

            – osmak
            9 hours ago











          • @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

            – ilkkachu
            8 hours ago











          • @osmak That is a correct understanding.

            – Kusalananda
            8 hours ago






          • 2





            A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

            – Monty Harder
            6 hours ago














          • 1





            I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

            – Michael Homer
            9 hours ago











          • OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

            – osmak
            9 hours ago











          • @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

            – ilkkachu
            8 hours ago











          • @osmak That is a correct understanding.

            – Kusalananda
            8 hours ago






          • 2





            A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

            – Monty Harder
            6 hours ago








          1




          1





          I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

          – Michael Homer
          9 hours ago





          I think this example misses an important point out, that filename expansion is not subject to further field splitting, unlike parameter expansion, so filenames with spaces are still safe.

          – Michael Homer
          9 hours ago













          OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

          – osmak
          9 hours ago





          OK, so I think I misunderstood how the * work in the first place. I thought that it is a common syntax used in Linux commands. But, if I understood your answer correctly, then filename expansion is a shell feature not a command feature. So what happened is that * got replaced by all file or directory names in PWD but when the shell tried executing the first one it produced the error I saw.

          – osmak
          9 hours ago













          @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

          – ilkkachu
          8 hours ago





          @osmak, yeah, it's a shell feature on Unixes. Easier that way, so each and every program doesn't have to implement it. Though of course programs like find know how to expand similar patterns, too (e.g. file -name "*.txt")

          – ilkkachu
          8 hours ago













          @osmak That is a correct understanding.

          – Kusalananda
          8 hours ago





          @osmak That is a correct understanding.

          – Kusalananda
          8 hours ago




          2




          2





          A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

          – Monty Harder
          6 hours ago





          A file named -r is bad, but one named -rf is even worse.

          – Monty Harder
          6 hours ago










          osmak is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          osmak is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













          osmak is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












          osmak is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















          Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid …



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f505707%2fhow-is-the-wildcard-interpreted-as-a-command%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          -

          Popular posts from this blog

          "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'. (on update cascade, on delete cascade,)

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 2 total noob sorry any help greatly appreciated. I keep getting this "Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'ON'." heres my codes code one CREATE TABLE supplier ( supplierID INT PRIMARY KEY, ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), price DECIMAL (5,2), ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); code two CREATE TABLE orders ( orderID INT PRIMARY KEY, customerID INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES customer(customerID), ISBN INT FOREIGN KEY REFERENCES book(ISBN), orderDate date, ON UPDATE CASCADE, ON DELETE CASCADE, ); Ive run out of stuff to try other than dumbing it down to uselessness. ...
          Read more

          Alcedinidae

          Image
          Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout ...
          Read more

          Origin of the phrase “under your belt”?

          Image
          .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 17 1 Today, I found myself discussing what students should have "under their belts" during a lecture, and I wondered to myself if there was some inappropriate undertone here that I might be unaware of. Question : What is the origin of the phrase "under your belt"? A google search revealed some webpages (e.g. [1]) that assert its origin is related to consumption of food -- once a meal has been eaten, it's under your belt (which is a relief). However, with such websites, I have no way to determine fact from "random guy on the internet making stuff up". etymology idioms ...
          Read more