Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> writes:
> Hi Harry,
>
>
> Raymond Wan wrote:
>> The other option is to *not* use ls and get your script to stat the
>> file directly (NB: I guess you want stat and not lstat?). In this
>> case, you should get a list of files in the directory, and then run
>> stat on each one. If you do this (which is perhaps the better
>> option), you would want to look up the readdir command, in addition
>> to stat.
But, the end result with either `ls -1 (numeric one)' or something
like. (From perldoc -f readdir)
@dots = grep { /^\./ && -f "$some_dir/$_" } readdir($dh);
closedir $dh;
Is the same thing... a list of file names. Only above they have been
verified by the -f test.
and of course that does what I want... but still being puzzled by the
failure of the original script.
> Sorry, slight correction to what I said as I just realized what you
> were doing :-) ... If you are using ls to feed the list of files,
> then maybe your problem is how you ran "ls"? Perhaps you should use
> the "-1" option to ensure one file is on each line?
Yeah, I should have mentioned that... . I did try that and have
replied to Shlomi showing output having used ls -1 (numeral one)
I don't really think it matters though. I see the script, though it
fails does print `$_' as 1 file name whether `ls -1' or plain `ls' is
fed in.
For example... if we remove the stat part like this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
while(<>){
print "$_\n";
}
The result of either `ls' or `ls -1' is the same.
ls *.txt|./t3
msg-on-share_nfs.txt
msg-on-share_nfs2.txt
ls -1 *.txt|./t3
msg-on-share_nfs.txt
msg-on-share_nfs2.txt
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
