Re: ** bug?

[hari@xxxxxxxxxx (Hariharan Dhandapani)]

@>From zefram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Sep 18 19:23 PDT 1995

@>No, it's not a bug.  ** is supposed to recurse, but not through
@>symlinks.  Hence, it doesn't follow the symlinks, and in this case
@>matches nothing.  ***/*.c would do what you want, as *** recurses in a
@>similar manner to ** but following symlinks.
@>
@>-zefram

Thanks for all your responses, "***" does work and does what i want it
to do, however what is the rationale behind differenitating symbolic
links, why doesn't "**" itself follow symbolic links too, it is very
difficult to write a generic script(without the proper knowledge of
whether one will hit symbolic links or not!)

Thanks,
-hari