On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 12:10:21PM +1100, Tim Connors wrote:
> Star King of the Grape Trees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Mon, 16 Jan 2006
> 10:47:03 +1100:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 08:40 +1100, Tim Connors wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >><snip>
> > >>
> > >>Why on earth would you want to put ls in backticks? I wonder who
> > >>originated this rather redundant and fragile (what happens when a
> > >>filename has any form of whitespace?) construct?
> > >>
> > >>
> > That would be me.
>
> Nope -- heaps of people have done this before you. Did you pick this
> technique up from someone else?
>
> It'd be nice if the technique would kindly stop propogating :)
>
> > >If you're dealing with so many files that the bash "glob buffer"
> > >fills up, `ls *.bmp` can work around that.
>
> I don't think there is a fixed limit glob buffer. Are you sure you
> are not confusing this with the amount of space bash is allowed to
> allocate for arguments for spawned commands -- a kernel limit?
If there's a fixed limit glob buffer that makes it impossible
to use a command like
onions *.bmp
I don't see how saying
onions `ls *.bmp`
could possibly help. Wouldn't the nested command
ls *.bmp
just run afoul of the same boffer limit?
-- hendrik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
