2014/10/13 2:45 "Steve Litt" <slitt@troubleshooters.com>:
>
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 09:33:43 +0100
> Martin Read <zen75502@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