seq -w will solve that problem a little more elegantly :)
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 13:41:58 -0800, Seth Arnold <sa...@im...> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:38:23AM -0500, Brian Carrier wrote:
> > >1. I feel that there should be a maximum command line size, but
> > >cannot seem to find one. I just ran some tests that had over 60KB of
> > >data in arguments (390 file names each over 160 bytes long) and there
> > >were no problems. This was on OS X, so I'm not sure if other OSes are
> > >different. Anyone know?
> >
> > Actually, I guess this should be shell dependent and not OS dependent.
> > I am using:
>
> I don't expect any shells would implement the limit on their own. Some
> experiementation shows that it is around 128k on my SuSE 9.2 system with
> a 2.6 kernel and on my Debian 3.0 system with a 2.2 kernel.
>
> (The exact limit varies based on the environment as well as command line
> arguments.)
>
> I've heard that some Unix systems have limits of one megabyte! Others
> (such as an old SCO 3.2.4.2 system I used to use) have much lower limits,
> perhaps 8k or 16k or so.. I've since reclaimed those brain cells.
>
> For 'numbered files' support, I've found that there are -two- popular
> ways to show lists:
> foo.1
> foo.2
> foo.3
> ...
> foo.10
> foo.11
> ...
>
> and
> foo.001
> foo.002
> ...
> foo.010
> ...
>
> I've found that the first style can be easily handled with seq(1):
> for f in `seq 1 100` ; do echo foo.${f} ; done
> The second style is only slightly harder:
> for f in `seq 1 100` ; do F=`printf %03d $f` ; echo foo.${F} ; done
>
> Analogues in perl are left as an exercise for the reader. :)
>
>
>
|
