Listing *only* directories?

[David Tilbrook]

Peter Hiscocks wrote:
> Inspired by David Tilbrook's comments on linux, I ask you to consider the
> following:
> 
> Amazingly, although 'ls' appears to have a zillion options, such as the
> somewhat obscure:
> 
>        -b, --escape
>               print octal escapes for nongraphic characters
> 
> there appears to be no way to do a directory list of *only* the
> subdirectories.
> 
> My hopes were raised by ls -d:
> 
>        -d, --directory
>               list directory entries instead of contents
> 
> Alas, it's behaviour is illustrated by the following dialogue:

What about:

	find . -type d | sed -e 's,^\./,,' -e '/\//d'

or

	ls -l | awk '/^d/ {print $9}'

or

	for X in * ; do
         	(cd $X >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo $X)
	done


or ... but I seem to be slipping into the egregious use of
UNIX contest -- see http://www.qef.com/html/docs/egregious.pdf

(Henry was one of the other judges).

But this is something I do so often I have many tools such as:

	l -d
	rls -d # list all subdirectories
	ls | fexists -d # fexists limits output to inputs
			# that are directories

> -----------------------------------
> [phiscock-YIGruI5hBFo at public.gmane.org visual-vocab]$ ls -d
> .
> -----------------------------------
<snip>
> 
> P.S. I'm also curious why ls -d would be useful. Presumably, there is more
> to it that meets the eye.
> 
> P.

This is something I'm doing constantly.

F.Y.I., the l, rls, and fexists named above all date back to the 70s.

-- dt

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml