2014/10/13 2:45 "Steve Litt" <sl...@troubleshooters.com>: > > On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:33:43 +0100 > Martin Read <zen75...@zen.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 12/10/14 04:12, Peter Zoeller wrote: > > > But the nice > > > thing is shell scripting is simplistic easy to learn and understand. > > > > I refer the audience to David A. Wheeler's essay[1] on how to handle > > filenames correctly in shell scripts, and to the bug report that he > > filed against POSIX.1-2008[2] on the subject. From those, I take away > > the lesson that no, shell scripting is not simplistic, easy to learn, > > and easy to understand. It just *looks* simplistic, easy to learn, > > and easy to understand, in ways that make it a horribly effective > > footgun. > > > > [1] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/filenames-in-shell.html > > Martin, > > Thanks so much for the preceding resource. It's worth its weight in > gold, and I've bookmarked it for quick retrieval.
mutter mutter ... cleaning input ... tool ... quick hack belt ... generalized tool box mutter mutter > This essay practically screams out for somebody to write a C program > that takes an argument of an arbitrary string, finds all files in a > directory, and returns a long string with those files separated by the > arbitrary string. A shellscript can then use mktemp or some other > facility to make that arbitrary string, pass it to the C program, and > then use the temporary string as a sure fire field separator. The C > program could also take an option as to whether or not should find > hidden files, and it could prepend "./" onto all relative paths not > already beginning with "./". I might do that tonight. mutter mutter ... RE ... glob ... sed - awk wars ... perl ... python - ruby ... mutter mutter erk cough cough man xargs mutter mutter