copy *.log result
That looks like Microsoft. On Unix-based systems, you would use this:
cat *.log > result
Alexander
--
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
On Windows, I believe the equivalent to your Unix command would be:
type *.log > result
On Unix, I think copy is cp. On either O/S it is possible to concatenate a bunch of binary files together into a single result file.
copy (cp) works with binary files. type or cat is designed to work with text files. | [reply]
[d/l] |
X:\>perl -E "say qq[Hello\cZWorld!]" > foo
X:\>type foo
Hello
X:\>perl -pe 1 < foo
Hello→World!
X:\>
Alexander
--
Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
cat is the abbreviation for 'concatenate' and will do binary files just fine. cp will complain if it's instructed to copy multiple source files and the target is not a directory. Windows 'copy' is different from both.
| [reply] |
copy (cp) works with binary files. type or cat is designed to work with text files.
Note that on *NIX/POSIX, there is generally no distinction between "binary" and "text" files. cp doesn't concatenate multiple files (-T, from your reply below, makes no difference here) - cat is "the" *NIX tool for concatenating files. If I guess that by "binary" vs. "text" you maybe mean "block-by-block" instead of "line-by-line", then that is course a valid point in regards to performance. But at least GNU Coreutils' cat is optimized to read and write files block-by-block, not line-by-line, when it doesn't need to do any line-by-line processing - see its simple_cat function.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |