Greg Wooledge eeg.ccf.org> writes:
> Just in case, it needs to be pointed out that using ls in this way is
> NOT a safe operation, since filenames may contain newlines (or other
> characters that ls may choose to represent with a ? instead of leaving
> intact, depending on the implementation). Ne
Bob Proulx proulx.com> writes:
> I assume that 'ls' isn't what you actually are doing, that you have
> reduced the test case to something smaller (thank you for that!)
> because the shell can list the directory itself.
>
Yup, doing 'ls' wasn't what I needed: it was just the first
nonsense/nontriv
