> > If you define the pattern is not regexp but is glob, you can use > > case/esac to do this without any forking. > > Yes, that would probably be OK for most purposes, though I admit my real > love for regex support is the ability to use "." instead of space to > avoid quoting arguments. ;) I use "?" for the same purpose for globs. For things that are casual, I find that it tends to make the end-user (read: my) experience simpler to use globs than to use regexp, largely for your ".*" vs "*" reasons.
