(I'm not entirely certain this still belongs on both lists... but I'm
also not sure that it doesn't.)
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
What I was doing at the time, so far as I remember, was:
for i in `ls path/to/directory1/ path/to/directory2/` ; do ls -l $i
&& $i ; done
but that d
The Wanderer wrote:
> What I was doing at the time, so far as I remember, was:
>
> for i in `ls path/to/directory1/ path/to/directory2/` ; do ls -l $i &&
> $i ; done
>
> but that didn't work because the filename printed by the subshell did
> not exist in the present directory.
Would this have
Bob Proulx wrote:
The Wanderer wrote:
For the little it's worth, I also find myself wanting to do
something like this from time to time, usually in a context in
which find is not a satisfactory alternative - or, at best, in
which it would be awkward and potentially difficult to construct a
fin
James Youngman wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
> >For the little it's worth, I also find myself wanting to do something
> >like this from time to time, usually in a context in which find is not a
> >satisfactory alternative - or, at best, in which it would be awkward and
> >potentially difficult to co
