Personally, I only need to use `for f in /dir/*`. Failing that, `echo /dir/*` (possibly piped through xargs) works too.
`ls` seems to be more for human eyes than scripting anyway. All the modes, etc. should really be read through `stat`. But when you're just starting out, you probably don't know that, hence the use of `ls` in scripts. Once people do learn, they usually go back and fix it. It's just part of the "larval stage" of hacking. On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 10:23:54AM +0300, Jack L. Frost wrote:
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 01:22:25PM -0400, Brian Nash wrote:I'm not sure on the specifics of the change, but for most scripted uses you would probably pass it the `-1` flag anyway. If it doesn't list one file per line anymore, that could be quite serious: we would need to use `dir` instead of `ls`! That's a whole extra keystroke! If the changes turn out to be serious, you might want to try suckless.org's version. (I believe it is called "sutils" and "putils", I can confirm that they work.)No. The way you use ls in scripts is you don't. http://mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
-- Only a fool expects rational behavior from his fellow humans.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
