5 ms·

I think you can achieve exactly the same without pipes with: > find . -name whatever\* -type f -print -delete ... except this variation should be safe with fi

I think you can achieve exactly the same without pipes with: > find . -name whatever\* -type f -print -delete ... except this variation should be safe with filenames containing the '\n' character (which is perfectly legal on most UNIXes).

JadeNB 10y ago
> > find . -name whatever\* -type f -print -delete Or you can also do it all in Perl: perl -E 'while (<whatever*>) { say; unlink }' EDIT: As tyingq points out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065132), I forgot that `find` recurses into subdirectories. I don't know a way to make Perl do the same that doesn't start getting more verbose (but there must be a Perl golfer somewhere around here who does …).
- tyingq 10y ago
  That doesn't recurse into subdirectories.
- EvilTerran 10y ago
  > there must be a Perl golfer somewhere around here who does … Hello! perl -MFile::Find -e 'find sub{if(-f&&/^whatever/){say$File::Find::name;unlink}},"."' You might even be able to do 'find{...}"."' (no "sub" or ","), but I don't have perl on my phone to test that ;)
  - a_gopher 10y ago
    perl -E 'sub x{say;for(<$_/*>){&x;unlink}};x for@ARGV' * perl -E 'push@ARGV,<$_/*>for@ARGV;say,unlink for@ARGV' *
    - EvilTerran 10y ago
      Isn't that just "rm -rv *"? The original spec was to only delete files, not directories - and only those matching a given pattern, at that. Also, I think yours would go into an infinite spin if it met a symlink loop (say, "ln -s . foo") - File::Find is hardened against that kinda shenanigans.
      - a_gopher 10y ago
        fair. not quite so pretty now... perl -E 'for(@ARGV){say,unlink for<$_/whatever*>;push@ARGV,($_)x(-d^-l)for<$_/*>}' .
tyingq 10y ago
Ahh, yes, files with newlines. You can use find -print0 | perl -0ne 'print($_);' ... using a null instead of newlines. You're correct that -delete is easier in this case, but the perl one liner is handy (as a starting point) if you're doing something conditional, or changing file extensions in bulk, etc.

JadeNB 10y ago

> > find . -name whatever\* -type f -print -delete Or you can also do it all in Perl: perl -E 'while (<whatever*>) { say; unlink }' EDIT: As tyingq points out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13065132), I forgot that `find` recurses into subdirectories. I don't know a way to make Perl do the same that doesn't start getting more verbose (but there must be a Perl golfer somewhere around here who does …).

tyingq 10y ago
That doesn't recurse into subdirectories.
EvilTerran 10y ago
> there must be a Perl golfer somewhere around here who does … Hello! perl -MFile::Find -e 'find sub{if(-f&&/^whatever/){say$File::Find::name;unlink}},"."' You might even be able to do 'find{...}"."' (no "sub" or ","), but I don't have perl on my phone to test that ;)
- a_gopher 10y ago
  perl -E 'sub x{say;for(<$_/*>){&x;unlink}};x for@ARGV' * perl -E 'push@ARGV,<$_/*>for@ARGV;say,unlink for@ARGV' *
  - EvilTerran 10y ago
    Isn't that just "rm -rv *"? The original spec was to only delete files, not directories - and only those matching a given pattern, at that. Also, I think yours would go into an infinite spin if it met a symlink loop (say, "ln -s . foo") - File::Find is hardened against that kinda shenanigans.
    - a_gopher 10y ago
      fair. not quite so pretty now... perl -E 'for(@ARGV){say,unlink for<$_/whatever*>;push@ARGV,($_)x(-d^-l)for<$_/*>}' .

tyingq 10y ago

Ahh, yes, files with newlines. You can use find -print0 | perl -0ne 'print($_);' ... using a null instead of newlines. You're correct that -delete is easier in this case, but the perl one liner is handy (as a starting point) if you're doing something conditional, or changing file extensions in bulk, etc.