On 04Jun2015 13:09, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why not use Python for what it's good for and say pipe the results of find into your python script? Reinventing find poorly isn't going to buy you anything.
And several others made similar disparaging remarks. I think you're all missing some of the point of Cecil's approach.
I suspect Cecil is a bit like me; he's writing various well understood simple external tools in Python as an aid to learning Python and its toolbox. As an added bonus one gets a deeper understanding of the nuances of the external tools as well, by debugging issues in implementing them.
The point isn't always to make the shortest route to a result; Cecil clearly already knows how to invoke the find command, for example. Sometimes the point is to understand the path to the result in more detail.
That may not be Cecil's objective, but I've certainly benefitted from writing my own version of things that already exist. Obviously you can't do that for everything, life is too short, but you can do it for things of interest and as a binus you can end up with a feature not available with the standard tool.
Cheers, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. - Ernest Rutherford -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
