On 1 Nov 2010, Pádraig Brady stated: > On 01/11/10 23:05, Nix wrote: >> That's much better (though I'd use the fuller regex I provided simply >> because 'Process PID' seems a bit short and possible to occur in >> legitimate output to me). > > For general ls output yes. > For the test which just does ls on 2 files, > anything more complicated is overkill.
Oh, that's true, we know what they're supposed to be called, don't we? On the basis that it's a rather unlikely ls bug that would cause it to emit "Process PID" at any time, I agree with you after all :)
