| 1 |
Etaoin Shrdlu schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 30 September 2007, Florian Philipp wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Which shell do you use? Bash's default behavior (I don't know whether |
| 5 |
>> you can change that) is that it doesn't expand * to all files and |
| 6 |
>> directories but only the nonhidden. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Just try the following: |
| 9 |
>> ls -l --directory --all ~/* |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> On my system it only shows my a long lost of all directories and files |
| 12 |
>> without a dot at the beginning although, strictly speaking, the |
| 13 |
>> command should show all files, even the hidden ones. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> No, it should not (assuming the syntax of your example), unless |
| 16 |
> bash "dotglob" option is on. One thing are the options to ls, another is |
| 17 |
> how the shell expands wildcard characters. |
| 18 |
> In your example, the tilde is expanded to the user's home dir |
| 19 |
> (eg, /home/user), the asterisk is expanded to all the file and directory |
| 20 |
> names under /home/user not starting with ".", so what ls really sees is |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> ls -l --directory --all /home/user/dir1 /home/user/dir2 /home/user/file1 /home/user/file2 |
| 23 |
> etc. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Since you gave the "--directory" (aka "-d") option, and "*" expansion |
| 26 |
> does not include names starting with ".", nothing else is printed. |
| 27 |
> The "--all" option does not come into play at all here. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> A different story would be if you did not use the -d option; then names |
| 30 |
> at first level starting with "." still would not have been shown |
| 31 |
> (because "*" is expanded by the shell before ls sees the names), but |
| 32 |
> directory contents would have been listed including names starting |
| 33 |
> with ".", due to the --all option. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
That's exactly what I wanted to explain to Dale ;) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Sorry if I puzzled you. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives