Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 2:59 AM Tim via wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Matt Welland writes: > > Supporting glob patterns at any level would be handy. I started to > > implement something which I've included below but before I complete it: > > I like this idea too. Just one thing: would it be possible to use the > double-asterisk ** instead of a single * to represent the directory > matching portion? I.e. /subdir/**/*.txt would find any file with a > name ending in .txt in any directory below /subdir. This is a pretty > common syntax for recursive globbing I think; at least I've seen it in > zsh, python and a few other places. > I don't understand the use or benefit of using ** for directories. Bash, perl and python all expand "*/c*" as I would expect. Can you send a pointer to the usage you are referring to? > > Tim > -- -- Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
Hi Matt, Matt Welland writes: > Supporting glob patterns at any level would be handy. I started to > implement something which I've included below but before I complete it: I like this idea too. Just one thing: would it be possible to use the double-asterisk ** instead of a single * to represent the directory matching portion? I.e. /subdir/**/*.txt would find any file with a name ending in .txt in any directory below /subdir. This is a pretty common syntax for recursive globbing I think; at least I've seen it in zsh, python and a few other places. Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
On 2019-11-28 8:38, Kristian Lein-Mathisen wrote: > I may be missing the point here, but is'nt it just easier to use find-files? I think there are situations where one is more natural than the other. find-files is strictly more powerful, but it's not as concise or readable for many use cases so I'm considering the limitations of the glob procedure independently. Best, Evan
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
I may be missing the point here, but is'nt it just easier to use find-files? http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/5/Module%20(chicken%20file)#find-files K. On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 23:32 Evan Hanson wrote: > Hi Matt, > > This would be nice indeed, I've also found myself wanting this feature > before. I don't know of an existing solution, but I think it would be > best if we made it "just work" with the existing glob procedure. > > I've created a ticket for that: https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1657 > > Cheers, > > Evan >
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
Hi Matt, This would be nice indeed, I've also found myself wanting this feature before. I don't know of an existing solution, but I think it would be best if we made it "just work" with the existing glob procedure. I've created a ticket for that: https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/1657 Cheers, Evan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
Improved version:
(define (multi-glob pathspec)
(let* ((path-parts (intersperse (string-split pathspec "/" #t) "/")))
(if (null? path-parts)
'()
(let loop ((parts (cdr path-parts))
(result (let ((p (car path-parts)))
(if (string=? p "")
'("/")
(glob (car path-parts))
(if (null? parts)
result
(let* ((part (car parts))
(rem (cdr parts)))
(loop rem
(apply append
(map (lambda (curr)
(let ((new (string-append curr part)))
(cond
((and (directory? curr)(file-read-access? curr))
(glob new))
((member part '("." ".." "/")) new)
(else '()
result)
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:25 AM Matt Welland wrote:
> Supporting glob patterns at any level would be handy. I started to
> implement something which I've included below but before I complete it:
>
> 1. Is there a multi-level glob implementation in some other egg? The glob
> that comes with posix only handles the pattern in the top level. I didn't
> find anything in searching the eggs.
>
> 2. Does anyone have an implementation they can share?
>
> 3. If I complete the implementation below can it be added to posix or
> should I create an egg?
>
> (define (multi-glob pathspec)
> (let* ((path-parts (string-split pathspec "/" #t)))
> (if (null? path-parts)
> '()
> (let loop ((parts (cdr path-parts))
>(result (let ((p (car path-parts)))
> (if (string=? p "")
> '("/")
> (glob (car path-parts))
> (if (null? parts)
> result
> (let* ((part (car parts))
> (rem (cdr parts)))
> (loop rem
> (apply append
> (map (lambda (curr)
> (let ((new (string-append curr "/"
> part)))
> (if (and (directory? curr)
>(file-read-access? curr))
> (glob new)
> '(
> result)
> ~
>
> ~
>
> --
> --
> Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated.
> It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
>
--
--
Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated.
It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
Supporting glob patterns at any level would be handy. I started to
implement something which I've included below but before I complete it:
1. Is there a multi-level glob implementation in some other egg? The glob
that comes with posix only handles the pattern in the top level. I didn't
find anything in searching the eggs.
2. Does anyone have an implementation they can share?
3. If I complete the implementation below can it be added to posix or
should I create an egg?
(define (multi-glob pathspec)
(let* ((path-parts (string-split pathspec "/" #t)))
(if (null? path-parts)
'()
(let loop ((parts (cdr path-parts))
(result (let ((p (car path-parts)))
(if (string=? p "")
'("/")
(glob (car path-parts))
(if (null? parts)
result
(let* ((part (car parts))
(rem (cdr parts)))
(loop rem
(apply append
(map (lambda (curr)
(let ((new (string-append curr "/"
part)))
(if (and (directory? curr)
(file-read-access? curr))
(glob new)
'(
result)
~
~
--
--
Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated.
It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
