Re: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting by kutsu (Priest) on Mar 10, 2006 at 15:37 UTC
Did you copy the code from the download link? (which sets it as text so you don't get the extra +'s that specify a wrapped line)?	[reply]
Re^3: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting by Scott7477 (Chaplain) on Mar 10, 2006 at 21:32 UTC
I doublechecked that and that wasn't the problem. Then I ran it and it worked fine...no errors at all. Who knows? User error, most likely:) A handy utility anyhow. Thanks, Scott	[reply]
Re^4: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting by parv (Parson) on Mar 11, 2006 at 21:25 UTC
Another reason could be that the program encountered an ephemeral file which was gone by the time program checks for its size (thus causing addition of `undef`, resulting in error message).	[reply] [d/l]
Re^2: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting by parv (Parson) on Mar 11, 2006 at 00:36 UTC
Seems like you encountered a state where the path length may be more than the program (underlying -s function) could handle. I can easily reproduce it by creating a circular symbolic link on FreeBSD. After 32\|33 levels, size is `undef`, resulting in `Use of uninitialized value in adddition <+> ...` message. I will post the updated program -- unless somebody beats me to it -- to not follow symbolic links. Update (later that day): Problem that i observed was due to circular symbolic links (unresolved till 3[23] levels); there was no problem w/ 60+ levels of directories.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting by GrandFather (Saint) on Mar 11, 2006 at 00:43 UTC
Ouch! Thanks for that work parv and I'd appreciate the update posted. DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel	[reply]
Re^4: Directory tree explorer with stats reporting by Scott7477 (Chaplain) on Mar 11, 2006 at 02:51 UTC
Not to pat myself on the back, but rather to point out the value of even simple testing: Someone downvoted my original post in this thread; probably because they didn't like the fact that I mentioned that I hadn't had time to dig into the code myself. Or perhaps because they thought I had done what GrandFather initially suggested was the problem: i.e. just copy pasted the code instead of downloading it. The subsequent posts to this thread demonstrate that my initial post had value: [id://parv] looked at this(and what the other posters had to say), found the bug and fixed it. The poing: even simple testing is worthwhile if you provide some detail for others to work with. Maybe I'm way off base here..but I think not...:) By the way..thanks for the fix, [id://parv] Scott	[reply]