Dave Korn wrote: > Guess I'll have to `ls *foo*0*` them and test -z the output, that > should work.
Nope, may have whitespace. Is checking the return status of ls portable?
cheers,
DaveK
Dave Korn wrote: > Guess I'll have to `ls *foo*0*` them and test -z the output, that > should work.
Nope, may have whitespace. Is checking the return status of ls portable?
cheers,
DaveK