From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question Message-ID: <20020627185720.V7017@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: , <20020627115912.S7017@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <3D1B2CCF.1FD49007@null.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3D1B2CCF.1FD49007@null.net>; from Douglas A. Gwyn on Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:40:23PM +0000 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:57:21 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: bcb907e6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:40:23PM +0000, Douglas A. Gwyn wrote: > > What seems to me to make sense would be to cleanly segregate out > the file-tree walker from *all* those applications, and design > the application interfaces so they could operate in conjunction > with the walker. Sort of like find -print | cpio ... I keep promising myself I'll write a "stat" modelled on "du" that produces a record of stat fields for each entry in the descended directory. However, (a) until this afternoon, I had no idea what to do with the output - I have now concluded that a Unix-date style format string is called for, no matter how much the Plan 9 purists may find this revolting and, (b) given no xargs or cpio, such an output is not really very useful - is this a chicken-and-egg situation, perhaps? ++L