At 19:49 -0400 6/11/99, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On the snippet you posted yesterday [the one with the readdir loop with > the odd '/.+/' in it that of course should have been a '/^\./'] i was > wondering: when I looked at that code, the very first thing I saw was > what to me was the obvious typo: the '>' which seemed obviously and > blatantly wrong [and hence my comment about the unix "rm -r * ~' > problem]. > > I've exchanged email with other folk who *ONLY* saw the RE problem: I > shudder to think that they would've actually fixed the RE and then *RUN* > the thing... And so I'm wondering: what did you intend as the 'oops'?? > To me, an open that clobbers every file is a lot bigger oops than an RE > that actually saves your behind [since it matches everything and saves > you from trashing the directory]. My, my... I never even saw that one (not my code :-) My _guess_ is that this was a "real" typo (i.e. the author came into my office and wrote the code on the whiteboard and I copied it from there. But yes, certainly, if the > was in the original it would run _even faster_ (and once :( after the pattern was fixed. rm -r * .o - V. -- -- |\ _,,,---,,_ Vicki Brown <vlb@cfcl.com> ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Journeyman Sourceror: Scripts & Philtres |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' P.O. Box 1269 San Bruno CA 94066 '---''(_/--' `-'\_) http://www.cfcl.com/~vlb http://www.macperl.org ==== Want to unsubscribe from this list? (Don't you love us anymore?) ==== Well, if you insist... Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to ==== fwp-request@technofile.org