Re: A better, more powerful fileglob?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: A better, more powerful fileglob? by Raster Burn (Beadle) on Feb 15, 2007 at 20:58 UTC
Hmmm... maybe combine Class::XPath with Path::Class.	[reply]
Re^2: A better, more powerful fileglob? by CountZero (Bishop) on Feb 15, 2007 at 20:29 UTC
One could of course read in the whole filesystem below the toplevel directory you intend to use, turn it into an XML-structure and then apply XPath rules to it. Something says me it will not be very efficient ... CountZero "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law	[reply]
Re^3: A better, more powerful fileglob? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 15, 2007 at 20:40 UTC
Something says me it will not be very efficient ... The particular implementation you mentioned, serializing the file system tree into an XML doc then deserializing it into a XML tree, would indeed be inefficient. However, XPath can be applied to tree structures (such as a file system) in an efficient manner. It was designed to do just that.	[reply]
Re^4: A better, more powerful fileglob? by CountZero (Bishop) on Feb 15, 2007 at 20:56 UTC
Thanks. I do some reading up on XPath then (it is several years ago I last used it). I seem to have had the wrong impression that it needed XML to work upon. CountZero "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler." - Conway's Law	[reply]