On 29Jan2007 21:29, Jacques B. <jjrboucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: | >Try this: | > | > set -x | > ls [^.]*/ | > ls -d [^.]*/ | > ls -d */ | > | >It would be interesting to see what the differences are, if any. | | Thanks for the tip & additional info. The results of the above after | doing unalias ls and set -x: | | (directory names neutered slightly to protect the youngs) | | ls [^.]*/ | + ls 'My son'\''s Passion/' Desktop/ download/ 'Final Material/' | ftools/ images/ 'Linux Forensic Documents/' LPIC/ 'Other son - | Profession/' Photos/ PicasaDocuments/ Presentations/ scripts/ thumb/ | | followed by the content of each of the above folders So, as expected then, yes? | The other two yield identical results, being: | | + ls -d 'My son'\''s Passion/' Desktop/ download/ 'Final Material/' | ftools/ images/ 'Linux Forensic Documents/' LPIC/ 'Other son - | Profession/' Photos/ PicasaDocuments/ Presentations/ scripts/ thumb/ | | followed by the directory names above. Good, also as expected. | I like that trace feature - lets you see how the globbing gets | expanded. So we see that the original syntax yields the content of | the directories, whereas as expected the -d only lists the directory | names. | Not to beat a dead horse, but I hate not understanding why something | works (or doesn't work). Why is it working on yours but not mine? | Are you getting the same trace output for the ls [^.]*/ command, but | without listing the contents of those directories, only the directory | names? I get what you get. We have established A) that "*/" and "[^.]*/" are equivalent and B) that -d prevents burrowing into the directories. We should have added: ls */ to the tests above to try all four permutations. Does it make sense now? -- Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx> DoD#743 http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/ Kilimanjaro is a pretty tricky climb. Most of it's up, until you reach the very, very top, and then it tends to slope away rather sharply.
