Get full path directory list on both recursive and non-recursive dircommand

[Scott Bass]

This post could easily be titled "Why Unix is so much better than
Windows", but that would likely ruffle a few feathers...

I have the following seemingly simple requirements:

1) Directory list of *.foo files, recursive to a particular root
directory
2) Directory list of *.foo files, in the root directory only

The list has to be returned as a full path to the files.

What works (returns full path)

1) dir "C:\Path\To\My\Files\*.foo" /b /s

What fails (returns filename only)

2) dir "C:\Path\To\My\Files\*.foo" /b

I've also investigated the FOR command, it has similar (but different)
shortcomings.

Short of copying a port of the Unix ls command to every user's machine
(not an option), or piping the output from dir into findstr to
overcome its shortcomings, is there any way to coax the dir command to
always return the full path to the file, whether recursive or not?

The dir command has been around since the dawn of time, why does it
still suck? All the brilliant minds in Redmond, and they can't match
the Unix ls and find commands???

 

[Scott Bass]

This post could easily be titled "Why Unix is so much better than
Windows", but that would likely ruffle a few feathers...

I have the following seemingly simple requirements:

1) Directory list of *.foo files, recursive to a particular root
directory
2) Directory list of *.foo files, in the root directory only

The list has to be returned as a full path to the files.

What works (returns full path)

1)  dir "C:\Path\To\My\Files\*.foo" /b /s

What fails (returns filename only)

2)  dir "C:\Path\To\My\Files\*.foo" /b

I've also investigated the FOR command, it has similar (but different)
shortcomings.

Short of copying a port of the Unix ls command to every user's machine
(not an option), or piping the output from dir into findstr to
overcome its shortcomings, is there any way to coax the dir command to
always return the full path to the file, whether recursive or not?

The dir command has been around since the dawn of time, why does it
still suck?  All the brilliant minds in Redmond, and they can't match
the Unix ls and find commands???

P.S.: Create two files, C:\Temp\foo.foo and C:\Temp\foo.fooxxx. Then
issue the command dir C:\Temp\*.foo. It returns both files. If I'd
wanted *.fooxxx I'd have asked for it. Instead I have to workaround
this bug in my code that is processing the directory list.

 

[Pegasus [MVP]]

This post could easily be titled "Why Unix is so much better than
Windows", but that would likely ruffle a few feathers...

I have the following seemingly simple requirements:

1) Directory list of *.foo files, recursive to a particular root
directory
2) Directory list of *.foo files, in the root directory only

The list has to be returned as a full path to the files.

What works (returns full path)

1) dir "C:\Path\To\My\Files\*.foo" /b /s

What fails (returns filename only)

2) dir "C:\Path\To\My\Files\*.foo" /b

I've also investigated the FOR command, it has similar (but different)
shortcomings.

Short of copying a port of the Unix ls command to every user's machine
(not an option), or piping the output from dir into findstr to
overcome its shortcomings, is there any way to coax the dir command to
always return the full path to the file, whether recursive or not?

The dir command has been around since the dawn of time, why does it
still suck? All the brilliant minds in Redmond, and they can't match
the Unix ls and find commands???

It never ceases to amuse me when people extol the virtues of a Unix or an
Apple Mac machine with Windows itself. It's like telling your wife "my
mother cooks much better than you do". Well, go and live with your mother!
Each OS has its peculiarities - that's just the way it is. You can work
around your particular problem with this batch file if you care a lot about
it. It does not fully emulate the dir command but it will return a full path
when invoked with a folder name.

@echo off
for /F "delims=" %%a in ('echo %1') do set Folder=%%~dpnxa
for /F "delims=" %%a in ('dir /b %1') do echo %Folder%\%%a

 

[Scott Bass]

It never ceases to amuse me when people extol the virtues of a Unix or an
Apple Mac machine with Windows itself. It's like telling your wife "my
mother cooks much better than you do". Well, go and live with your mother!
Each OS has its peculiarities - that's just the way it is. You can work
around your particular problem with this batch file if you care a lot about
it. It does not fully emulate the dir command but it will return a full path
when invoked with a folder name.

@echo off
for /F "delims=" %%a in ('echo %1') do set Folder=%%~dpnxa
for /F "delims=" %%a in ('dir /b %1') do echo %Folder%\%%a

Hi Pegasus,

Thanks for the help. I do appreciate it (as well as your previous
help). And I'm glad I amused you. You still haven't addressed
whether the Windows dir command sucks or not ;-)

However, your analogy falls down, since this is an arranged marriage.
I'd love to go live with my mother, but someone put a gun to my head
and said I had to marry this man.

Re: your batch file, I want to give the user the ability to specify a
parm, recursive=Y|N and, no matter what they put for the root
directory, a full path for the matching files is returned. I need to
do it in a single command string, not a batch file, since I can't copy
a batch file to hundreds of user's machines.

I may just have to tell them "if you don't want recursion, specify a
root directory deep enough that does not contain sub-directories", and
just hard code the /s. And if sub-directories are later created after
the fact, the process may break.

All because the dir command, that's been around for 30+ years, sucks.

 

[Pegasus [MVP]]

Hi Pegasus,

Thanks for the help. I do appreciate it (as well as your previous
help). And I'm glad I amused you. You still haven't addressed
whether the Windows dir command sucks or not ;-)

*** I agree, there is a glaring inconsistency.

However, your analogy falls down, since this is an arranged marriage.
I'd love to go live with my mother, but someone put a gun to my head
and said I had to marry this man.

*** If your dislike of Windows is sufficiently strong then you
*** need to move into a Unix/Linux environment.

Re: your batch file, I want to give the user the ability to specify a
parm, recursive=Y|N and, no matter what they put for the root
directory, a full path for the matching files is returned. I need to
do it in a single command string, not a batch file, since I can't copy
a batch file to hundreds of user's machines.

*** It may be possible to it with a single command string but I am
*** not sufficiently motivated to spend an hour on the issue. If you
*** repost your question in alt.msdos.batch.nt then you will get a
*** dozen excellent answers in no time at all - the experts in that
*** group love this type of challenge.

 

[Don Phillipson]

This post could easily be titled "Why Unix is so much better than
Windows", but that would likely ruffle a few feathers... . . .
The dir command has been around since the dawn of time, why does it
still suck? All the brilliant minds in Redmond, and they can't match
the Unix ls and find commands???

Factual answers include:
1. MS-DOS is proprietary software i.e. commercial market prospects
govern whether it is improved or not.
2. But Linux is open-source, i.e. open to improvement by anyone
capable of making an improvement.
But SB knew this already: so that it is not clear why he posted.