Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How to separate a File-Extension
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Hufschmidt
Feb 8, 2012, 5:46:00 AM2/8/12
to
Hello @ all,
I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
#!/bin/bash
ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
do
FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
done
This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
Thanks in advance for any hints - Michael
I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
#!/bin/bash
ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
do
FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
done
This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
Thanks in advance for any hints - Michael
Dave Gibson
Feb 8, 2012, 6:11:15 AM2/8/12
to
Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
> Hello @ all,
>
> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
> #!/bin/bash
> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
> do
> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
> done
>
> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
With the ${var%pattern} (strip trailing pattern) parameter expansion:
> Hello @ all,
>
> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
> #!/bin/bash
> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
> do
> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
> done
>
> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
FILE_NEW=${FILE_OLD%.cwk}.txt
Consider using a for loop instead of piping ls' output to a while loop:
for FILE_OLD in *.cwk
do
...
done
Ben Bacarisse
Feb 8, 2012, 6:14:16 AM2/8/12
to
Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> writes:
> Hello @ all,
>
> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
> #!/bin/bash
> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
> do
> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
> done
>
> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
${FILE_OLD%.cwk}.txt
> Hello @ all,
>
> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
> #!/bin/bash
> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
> do
> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
> done
>
> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
In addition, I'd
(a) quote all variables so as to be safe against file names with spaces,
(b) use file globing rather than ls | while read, and
(c) remove the use of cat:
for f in *.cwk; do recode-program <"$f" >"${f%.cwk}.txt"; done
If the "recode-program" is actually a pipeline, it's nice to make use of
some little-used syntax:
for f in *.cwk; do <"$f" head | tr A-Z a-z >"${f%.cwk}.txt"; done
This keeps the pipe together in one place.
--
Ben.
Michael Hufschmidt
Feb 8, 2012, 6:30:10 AM2/8/12
to
thank you, this works perfectly. I do not use a loop because some of the
filenames may contain spaces.
Regards - Michael
Aragorn
Feb 8, 2012, 7:47:14 AM2/8/12
to
On Wednesday 08 February 2012 12:30, Michael Hufschmidt conveyed the
following to comp.unix.shell...
That shouldn't be a problem if you quote the variable.
--
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
following to comp.unix.shell...
--
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Ben Bacarisse
Feb 8, 2012, 8:46:28 AM2/8/12
to
a 'for' loop is not cause any problems. Using a 'for' loop with file
globing works just as well as 'ls | while read' when there are spaces,
but your use of unquoted variable expansions ($FILE_OLD rather than
"$FILE_OLD" for example) causes problems no matter how you get the names
to start with.
--
Ben.
Dave Gibson
Feb 8, 2012, 9:20:34 AM2/8/12
to
Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
> Am 08.02.2012 12:11 schrieb Dave Gibson:
>> Consider using a for loop instead of piping ls' output to a while loop:
>>
>> for FILE_OLD in *.cwk
> Am 08.02.2012 12:11 schrieb Dave Gibson:
>> Consider using a for loop instead of piping ls' output to a while loop:
>>
>> for FILE_OLD in *.cwk
> thank you, this works perfectly. I do not use a loop because some of the
> filenames may contain spaces.
Globbing (wildcard expansion) is performed after word splitting so the
> filenames may contain spaces.
'for' command will receive each of the names in the generated list as
a distinct item.
Try:
for f in *.cwk ; do printf ' -->%s<--\n' "$f" ; done
Robert Bonomi
Feb 9, 2012, 1:02:48 AM2/9/12
to
In article <9pf234...@mid.individual.net>,
The "classical" method uses basename(1).
Modern shells have string-manipulation constructs that let you do it without
the need to call an external utility.
Modern shells have string-manipulation constructs that let you do it without
the need to call an external utility.
Chris F.A. Johnson
Feb 9, 2012, 4:08:42 PM2/9/12
to
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author <http://shell.cfajohnson.com/>
===================================================================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Ralph Spitzner
Feb 10, 2012, 2:33:10 AM2/10/12
to
Robert Bonomi wrote:
[...]
Am I missing somethinge here ?
bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
I usually use `awk -F "something" {'print $x'}` to get rid
of weird pre/extensions...
-rasp
--
RTMPDump & ffmpeg are your friends..
-icke
[...]
> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
[...]
Am I missing somethinge here ?
bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
I usually use `awk -F "something" {'print $x'}` to get rid
of weird pre/extensions...
-rasp
--
RTMPDump & ffmpeg are your friends..
-icke
Stachu 'Dozzie' K.
Feb 10, 2012, 3:09:09 AM2/10/12
to
On 2012-02-10, Ralph Spitzner <ra...@spitzner.org> wrote:
> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>
>
> bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
> 01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
>
> Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
> that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
And what did you expect from this command?
> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>
>
> bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
> 01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
>
> Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
> that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
--
Secunia non olet.
Stanislaw Klekot
Message has been deleted
Janis Papanagnou
Feb 10, 2012, 4:41:23 AM2/10/12
to
Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> [...]
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
> [...]
>
>
> Am I missing somethinge here ?
Yes; reading the man page:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> [...]
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
> [...]
>
>
> Am I missing somethinge here ?
"[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>
>
> bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
> 01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
>
> Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
> that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
>
> I usually use `awk -F "something" {'print $x'}` to get rid
> of weird pre/extensions...
in shell, you have
${parameter#word}
${parameter##word}
${parameter%word}
${parameter%%word}
Janis
>
> -rasp
>
>
>
>
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 6:46:15 AM2/10/12
to
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>> #!/bin/bash
>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>> do
>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>> done
>>
>> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>
the leading directory components of a file path.
--
PointedEars
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>> #!/bin/bash
>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>> do
>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>> done
>>
>> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>
> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
the leading directory components of a file path.
--
PointedEars
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 6:47:15 AM2/10/12
to
Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>> [...]
>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>
> Yes; reading the man page:
>
> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
Which is not what the OP is looking for.
> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> [...]
>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>> [...]
>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>
> Yes; reading the man page:
>
> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
Stephane Chazelas
Feb 10, 2012, 6:57:52 AM2/10/12
to
2012-02-10 12:46:15 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
[...]
~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
foo
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
--
Stephane
[...]
> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
> the leading directory components of a file path.
[...]
> the leading directory components of a file path.
~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
foo
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
--
Stephane
Casper H.S. Dik
Feb 10, 2012, 7:02:36 AM2/10/12
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>>> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>>> do
>>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>>> done
>>>
>>> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>>> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>>
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
>the leading directory components of a file path.
It also removes the listed extension:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>>> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>>> do
>>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>>> done
>>>
>>> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>>> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>>
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
>the leading directory components of a file path.
$ basename ~casper/file.c .c
file
Casper
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 7:22:01 AM2/10/12
to
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
or multiple "extensions", and requires another tool, so I think I will
usually stick to the equally POSIX-compliant shell parameter expansions
${x%.*} and ${x%%.*} (which also work in GNU bash).
<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_02>
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
>> the leading directory components of a file path.
> [...]
>
> ~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
> foo
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
Thanks, that also works in GNU. However, this does not help with unknown
>> the leading directory components of a file path.
> [...]
>
> ~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
> foo
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
or multiple "extensions", and requires another tool, so I think I will
usually stick to the equally POSIX-compliant shell parameter expansions
${x%.*} and ${x%%.*} (which also work in GNU bash).
<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_02>
Stephane Chazelas
Feb 10, 2012, 7:39:29 AM2/10/12
to
2012-02-10 13:22:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
careful with that though:
$ x=/etc/init.d/foo
$ echo ${x%.*}
/etc/init
zsh/csh:
$ echo $x:r
/etc/init.d/foo
You may also need to consider /path/to/foo.x/ and foo-2.1.tar.gz
--
Stephane
> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
> >> the leading directory components of a file path.
> > [...]
> >
> > ~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
> > foo
> >
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
>
> Thanks, that also works in GNU. However, this does not help with unknown
> or multiple "extensions", and requires another tool, so I think I will
> usually stick to the equally POSIX-compliant shell parameter expansions
> ${x%.*} and ${x%%.*} (which also work in GNU bash).
[...]
>
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> >> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
> >> the leading directory components of a file path.
> > [...]
> >
> > ~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
> > foo
> >
> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
>
> Thanks, that also works in GNU. However, this does not help with unknown
> or multiple "extensions", and requires another tool, so I think I will
> usually stick to the equally POSIX-compliant shell parameter expansions
> ${x%.*} and ${x%%.*} (which also work in GNU bash).
careful with that though:
$ x=/etc/init.d/foo
$ echo ${x%.*}
/etc/init
zsh/csh:
$ echo $x:r
/etc/init.d/foo
You may also need to consider /path/to/foo.x/ and foo-2.1.tar.gz
--
Stephane
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 7:52:21 AM2/10/12
to
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2012-02-10 13:22:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> >> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It
>> >> removes the leading directory components of a file path.
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > ~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
>> > foo
>> >
>> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
>>
>> Thanks, that also works in GNU. However, this does not help with unknown
>> or multiple "extensions", and requires another tool, so I think I will
>> usually stick to the equally POSIX-compliant shell parameter expansions
>> ${x%.*} and ${x%%.*} (which also work in GNU bash).
> [...]
>
> careful with that though:
>
> $ x=/etc/init.d/foo
> $ echo ${x%.*}
> /etc/init
OK, so one needs to trim the directories first:
> 2012-02-10 13:22:01 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> >> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It
>> >> removes the leading directory components of a file path.
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > ~$ basename /path/to/foo.cwk .cwk
>> > foo
>> >
>> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/basename.html
>>
>> Thanks, that also works in GNU. However, this does not help with unknown
>> or multiple "extensions", and requires another tool, so I think I will
>> usually stick to the equally POSIX-compliant shell parameter expansions
>> ${x%.*} and ${x%%.*} (which also work in GNU bash).
> [...]
>
> careful with that though:
>
> $ x=/etc/init.d/foo
> $ echo ${x%.*}
> /etc/init
my_basename3 () {
x=${1%/}
x=${x##*/}
printf "%s" "${x%%.*}"
}
> zsh/csh:
> $ echo $x:r
> /etc/init.d/foo
So zsh and csh are not POSIX-compliant?
> zsh/csh:
> $ echo $x:r
> /etc/init.d/foo
> You may also need to consider /path/to/foo.x/ and foo-2.1.tar.gz
Ben Bacarisse
Feb 10, 2012, 8:29:40 AM2/10/12
to
> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>> [...]
>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>
>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>
>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>
> Which is not what the OP is looking for.
They want to strip the suffix. Of course, basename can do that too, but
>
>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>> [...]
>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>
>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>
>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>
> Which is not what the OP is looking for.
if the OP were ever to generalise the script to work with paths other
than ., the full behaviour of basename would get in the way.
"${f%.cwk}.txt" is surely the right answer.
--
Ben.
Ben Bacarisse
Feb 10, 2012, 8:31:59 AM2/10/12
to
Ben Bacarisse <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>
>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>>> [...]
>>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>>
>>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>>
>>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>>
>> Which is not what the OP is looking for.
>
> They want to strip the suffix...
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> writes:
>
>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>>> [...]
>>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>>
>>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>>
>>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>>
>> Which is not what the OP is looking for.
>
<snip irrelevant clarification>
Oh dear. I somehow missed the word "not". Please ignore.
--
Ben.
Stephane Chazelas
Feb 10, 2012, 12:52:05 PM2/10/12
to
i2012-02-10 13:52:21 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
[...]
No, and they never claimed to be. zsh has a "sh" emulation mode
(also enabled when called as "sh") than aims at improving POSIX
compliance, where you need ${x:r} instead (but of course you
wouldn't if you were writing a POSIX script).
~$ a=a/a.b zsh -c 'echo $a:r'
a/a
~$ a=a/a.b ARGV0=sh zsh -c 'echo $a:r'
a/a.b:r
~$ a=a/a.b zsh -c 'emulate sh; echo $a:r'
a/a.b:r
~$ a=a/a.b ARGV0=sh zsh -c 'echo ${a:r}'
a/a
(ARGV0=x cmd, is zsh way to set the argv[0] of cmd).
(zsh also has csh and ksh emulation modes)
--
Stephane
[...]
> > zsh/csh:
> > $ echo $x:r
> > /etc/init.d/foo
>
> So zsh and csh are not POSIX-compliant?
[...]
> > $ echo $x:r
> > /etc/init.d/foo
>
> So zsh and csh are not POSIX-compliant?
No, and they never claimed to be. zsh has a "sh" emulation mode
(also enabled when called as "sh") than aims at improving POSIX
compliance, where you need ${x:r} instead (but of course you
wouldn't if you were writing a POSIX script).
~$ a=a/a.b zsh -c 'echo $a:r'
a/a
~$ a=a/a.b ARGV0=sh zsh -c 'echo $a:r'
a/a.b:r
~$ a=a/a.b zsh -c 'emulate sh; echo $a:r'
a/a.b:r
~$ a=a/a.b ARGV0=sh zsh -c 'echo ${a:r}'
a/a
(ARGV0=x cmd, is zsh way to set the argv[0] of cmd).
(zsh also has csh and ksh emulation modes)
--
Stephane
Barry Margolin
Feb 10, 2012, 6:21:56 PM2/10/12
to
In article <10386993....@PointedEars.de>,
explicitly as the second argument.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> > Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
> >> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
> >> #!/bin/bash
> >> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
> >> do
> >> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
> >> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
> >> done
> >>
> >> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
> >> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
> >
> > The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>
> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
> the leading directory components of a file path.
It optionally removes a suffix, but you have to supply the suffix
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> > Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
> >> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
> >> #!/bin/bash
> >> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
> >> do
> >> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
> >> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
> >> done
> >>
> >> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
> >> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
> >
> > The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>
> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
> the leading directory components of a file path.
explicitly as the second argument.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 7:06:12 PM2/10/12
to
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> i2012-02-10 13:52:21 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> [...]
>> > zsh/csh:
>> > $ echo $x:r
>> > /etc/init.d/foo
>>
>> So zsh and csh are not POSIX-compliant?
> [...]
>
> No, and they never claimed to be. […]
> i2012-02-10 13:52:21 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> [...]
>> > zsh/csh:
>> > $ echo $x:r
>> > /etc/init.d/foo
>>
>> So zsh and csh are not POSIX-compliant?
> [...]
>
OK, thanks for the explanation. But then you do not have a point there.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 10, 2012, 7:08:02 PM2/10/12
to
Barry Margolin wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
>> the leading directory components of a file path.
>
> It optionally removes a suffix, but you have to supply the suffix
> explicitly as the second argument.
11-hours newsfeed?
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote:
>> basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions"). It removes
>> the leading directory components of a file path.
>
> It optionally removes a suffix, but you have to supply the suffix
> explicitly as the second argument.
Robert Bonomi
Feb 12, 2012, 5:09:44 AM2/12/12
to
In article <q7pd09-...@cjlocal.com>,
Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 2012-02-09, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <9pf234...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>>>Hello @ all,
>>>
>>>I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>>> do
>>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>>> done
>>>
>>>This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>>>FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for any hints - Michael
>>
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>
>> Modern shells have string-manipulation constructs that let you do it without
>> the need to call an external utility.
>
> That is part of the standard Unix shell.
True _TODAY_. *Not* historically. Thus the 'modern' qualifier.
>On 2012-02-09, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article <9pf234...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>>>Hello @ all,
>>>
>>>I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>>> do
>>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>>> done
>>>
>>>This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>>>FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance for any hints - Michael
>>
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>
>> Modern shells have string-manipulation constructs that let you do it without
>> the need to call an external utility.
>
> That is part of the standard Unix shell.
Robert Bonomi
Feb 12, 2012, 5:17:53 AM2/12/12
to
In article <10386993....@PointedEars.de>,
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <use...@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>>> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>>> do
>>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>>> done
>>>
>>> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>>> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>>
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>
>basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions").
Really?? What does "basename foobar ar' do on _your_ system?
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Michael Hufschmidt <Michael_H...@omnis.net> wrote:
>>> I am writing a shell script to do some conversion:
>>> #!/bin/bash
>>> ls -1 *.cwk | while read FILE_OLD
>>> do
>>> FILE_NEW=$FILE_OLD".txt"
>>> cat $FILE_OLD | [... do some recoding ...] > $FILE_NEW
>>> done
>>>
>>> This converts myFile.cwk into myFile.cwk.txt. How could I calculate
>>> FILE_NEW without the extension in order to get myFile.txt?
>>
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>
>basename(1) does not remove filename suffixes ("extensions").
Robert Bonomi
Feb 12, 2012, 5:20:08 AM2/12/12
to
In article <arte09-...@spitzner.org>,
it will remove the specified trailing string. e.g.:
$ basename foobar ar
foob
Ralph Spitzner <ra...@spitzner.org> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>[...]
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>[...]
>
>
>Am I missing somethinge here ?
apparenly. :)
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>[...]
>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>[...]
>
>
>Am I missing somethinge here ?
>
>
>bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
>01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
>
>Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
>that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
no. In fact, it _doesn't_care_ if the filename has a dot in it or not.
>
>bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
>01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
>
>Does basename somehow get confused if the filename has more
>that one dot ? (a la Windblo$)
it will remove the specified trailing string. e.g.:
$ basename foobar ar
foob
Robert Bonomi
Feb 12, 2012, 5:24:27 AM2/12/12
to
In article <10072393....@PointedEars.de>,
so there was no directory component to remove.
Try 'basename foobar ar' on _your_ system, and see what happens.
Applying it to the process of renaming a bunch of files with a specified
common trailing part to have a different trailing part is left as an
exercise for the student.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <use...@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>> [...]
>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>
>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>
>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>
>Which is not what the OP is looking for.
Per the OPs _example_ he was dealing with files in the 'current directory',
>
>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>> [...]
>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>
>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>
>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>
>Which is not what the OP is looking for.
so there was no directory component to remove.
Try 'basename foobar ar' on _your_ system, and see what happens.
Applying it to the process of renaming a bunch of files with a specified
common trailing part to have a different trailing part is left as an
exercise for the student.
Janis Papanagnou
Feb 12, 2012, 5:37:37 AM2/12/12
to
string manipulation functions already, and those ksh features made it
into the POSIX standard quite early as well.
Janis
Janis Papanagnou
Feb 12, 2012, 5:48:55 AM2/12/12
to
On 12.02.2012 11:24, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <10072393....@PointedEars.de>,
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <use...@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>>> [...]
>>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>>
>>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>>
>>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>>
>> Which is not what the OP is looking for.
>
> Per the OPs _example_ he was dealing with files in the 'current directory',
> so there was no directory component to remove.
Correct. That's why basename, as used by the poster, did not work.
> In article <10072393....@PointedEars.de>,
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <use...@PointedEars.de> wrote:
>> Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.02.2012 08:33, schrieb Ralph Spitzner:
>>>> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> The "classical" method uses basename(1).
>>>> [...]
>>>> Am I missing somethinge here ?
>>>
>>> Yes; reading the man page:
>>>
>>> "[...] any leading directory components removed. [...]"
>>
>> Which is not what the OP is looking for.
>
> Per the OPs _example_ he was dealing with files in the 'current directory',
> so there was no directory component to remove.
>
> Try 'basename foobar ar' on _your_ system, and see what happens.
>>>> bash-4.1# basename 01.\ Whiteman\ macht\ den\ Reim.mp3
>>>> 01. Whiteman macht den Reim.mp3
manpage he would have known that and also that it can be use with
another argument in case he cares, which he shouldn't, since there
are the built-in shell constructs that I suggested in my posting.)
Janis
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Feb 18, 2012, 2:00:10 PM2/18/12
to
before you reply. IOW: Read, think, post. In that order. TIA.
Eric
Feb 18, 2012, 2:51:03 PM2/18/12
to
about things that all happened on the same day, and we have no way of
telling what posts he could see when he wrote that. And in any case the
post makes sense in context. You have neither read carefully enough nor
thought clearly enough.
But then we have past evidence that you do neither of these things.
Eric
--
ms fnd in a lbry
0 new messages