in reply to mvi -- mv+vi (+ln+rm+cp+mkdir)

What about using symlink on directories (I needed it)?

Just a simple example that works quite well (I haven't tested it extesively).

if( (-f $file) and ( ! link( $file, $new ))  ) {
    warn "Can't link $file to $new: $!\n";
} elsif( (-d $file) and ( ! symlink( $file, $new ))  ) {
    warn "Can't symbolic link $file to $new: $!\n";
} else {
    $did= 'ln';
}

[download]

In the ProcessFile subroutine.

And recursive directory structure creation (just like mkdir -p)?

This is made using the subroutine make_path in File::Path instead of mkdir to create directories.

use File::Path        qw< make_path >; # this should be added at the t
+op

sub MakeNewDirs
{
    my( @newDirs )= @_;
    for my $dir (  @newDirs  ) {
        if(  -d $dir  ) {
            warn "mkdir $dir: Already exists.\n";
        } elsif(  make_path( $dir )  ) {
            warn "mkdir $dir\n";
        } else {
            warn "Can't mkdir $dir: $!\n";
        }
    }
}

[download]

Anyway thank you for sharing.

Alex's Log - http://alexlog.co.cc

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: mvi -- mv+vi (+ln+rm+cp+mkdir) (ln -s, mkdir -p)
by tye (Sage) on Aug 02, 2010 at 21:02 UTC

    I usually want to be told when I typo part of the path. And, since I'm in vim, it isn't hard to expand "MD=foo/bar/baz" to add "MD=foo" and "MD=foo/bar". But I can see wanting to avoid such machinations. Perhaps MP= makes sense.

    As I was posting this, I briefly wondered why I hadn't added support for creating symbolic links (other than "never needed it, yet"). Thinking about it more now that you've asked, I see some problems with supporting such. There are lots of ways to make a symbolic link that points to an existing file or directory and I don't yet see a clear way to distinguish between the cases via this interface.

    Consider "mvi foo/*" and then changing "=foo/bar" to "S=foo/baz". You probably want the equivalent of 

     % ln -s bar foo/baz
 % readlink foo/baz
bar
 %

    [download]

    not "readlink foo/baz" returning "../foo/bar" nor "/whatever/path/we/are/in/foo/bar". But if you did want one of those, how would specify it?

    Maybe I should just assume that people either want relative symlinks or absolute symlinks and, when making relative symlinks, remove as many instances of ".." as possible? Then you could say "RS=foo/baz" or "AS=foo/baz". That'd be easier than actually trying to get the invocation of "ln -s" correct on the first try (which is extra hard for me since I personally always think that the arguments to "ln -s" should go in the other order for some reason).

    I'd probably never use "ln -s" directly again. Yeah, I think I really need to implement this.

    Thanks for the suggestions!

    - tye        

[reply]
[d/l]
[reply]

In Section Cool Uses for Perl