Zsh: source scripts recursively

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

I have ~/scripts/ folder that contains multiple subfolders with arbitrary directory levels.

This folder only for scripts that need to be sourced when start zsh, how to recursively source all files under its folder and its subfolders in an short and effective way?

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

add a comment |

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

I have ~/scripts/ folder that contains multiple subfolders with arbitrary directory levels.

This folder only for scripts that need to be sourced when start zsh, how to recursively source all files under its folder and its subfolders in an short and effective way?

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

add a comment |

up vote
4
down vote

favorite

I have ~/scripts/ folder that contains multiple subfolders with arbitrary directory levels.

This folder only for scripts that need to be sourced when start zsh, how to recursively source all files under its folder and its subfolders in an short and effective way?

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

I have ~/scripts/ folder that contains multiple subfolders with arbitrary directory levels.

This folder only for scripts that need to be sourced when start zsh, how to recursively source all files under its folder and its subfolders in an short and effective way?

scripting zsh

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

asked 2 hours ago

Tuyen Pham

415111

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

Sourcing all non-hidden regular files in there, in collation order:

for f (~/scripts/**/*(N.)) . $f

I would suggest however that you name those files using a specific template like with a .zsh extension (and use *.zsh instead of * above) to avoid problems if there are backup files lying about in there for instance.

Or you could at least exclude some common ones like file~, file.dpkg-dist, file.back...:

set -o extendedglob
for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak))(N.)) . $f

etc.

edited 26 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak)))(N.)) . $f. With .zsh means <..>s/**/^*.zsh("~"|dpkg<...>?
– Tuyen Pham
1 hour ago

You had redundant extra ) in bak))).
– Tuyen Pham
42 mins ago

1

@TuyenPham, thanks. Fixed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
26 mins ago

@TuyenPham No, there is no sense in combining them like that. It's about using a whitelist vs a blacklist. The whitelist is /*.zsh, and the blacklist is /^*("~"|dpkg<...>). It's safer to use a whitelist, but if you have naming requirements that don't allow for files ending in .zsh, then you could at least opt for using a blacklist.
– JoL
27 secs ago

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f480766%2fzsh-source-scripts-recursively%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

Sourcing all non-hidden regular files in there, in collation order:

for f (~/scripts/**/*(N.)) . $f

Or you could at least exclude some common ones like file~, file.dpkg-dist, file.back...:

set -o extendedglob
for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak))(N.)) . $f

etc.

edited 26 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak)))(N.)) . $f. With .zsh means <..>s/**/^*.zsh("~"|dpkg<...>?
– Tuyen Pham
1 hour ago

You had redundant extra ) in bak))).
– Tuyen Pham
42 mins ago

1

@TuyenPham, thanks. Fixed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
26 mins ago

@TuyenPham No, there is no sense in combining them like that. It's about using a whitelist vs a blacklist. The whitelist is /*.zsh, and the blacklist is /^*("~"|dpkg<...>). It's safer to use a whitelist, but if you have naming requirements that don't allow for files ending in .zsh, then you could at least opt for using a blacklist.
– JoL
27 secs ago

add a comment |

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

Sourcing all non-hidden regular files in there, in collation order:

for f (~/scripts/**/*(N.)) . $f

Or you could at least exclude some common ones like file~, file.dpkg-dist, file.back...:

set -o extendedglob
for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak))(N.)) . $f

etc.

edited 26 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak)))(N.)) . $f. With .zsh means <..>s/**/^*.zsh("~"|dpkg<...>?
– Tuyen Pham
1 hour ago

You had redundant extra ) in bak))).
– Tuyen Pham
42 mins ago

1

@TuyenPham, thanks. Fixed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
26 mins ago

@TuyenPham No, there is no sense in combining them like that. It's about using a whitelist vs a blacklist. The whitelist is /*.zsh, and the blacklist is /^*("~"|dpkg<...>). It's safer to use a whitelist, but if you have naming requirements that don't allow for files ending in .zsh, then you could at least opt for using a blacklist.
– JoL
27 secs ago

add a comment |

up vote
4
down vote

accepted

Sourcing all non-hidden regular files in there, in collation order:

for f (~/scripts/**/*(N.)) . $f

Or you could at least exclude some common ones like file~, file.dpkg-dist, file.back...:

set -o extendedglob
for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak))(N.)) . $f

etc.

edited 26 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

Sourcing all non-hidden regular files in there, in collation order:

for f (~/scripts/**/*(N.)) . $f

Or you could at least exclude some common ones like file~, file.dpkg-dist, file.back...:

set -o extendedglob
for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak))(N.)) . $f

etc.

edited 26 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

edited 26 mins ago

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

answered 2 hours ago

Stéphane Chazelas

292k54544884

for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak)))(N.)) . $f. With .zsh means <..>s/**/^*.zsh("~"|dpkg<...>?
– Tuyen Pham
1 hour ago

You had redundant extra ) in bak))).
– Tuyen Pham
42 mins ago

1

@TuyenPham, thanks. Fixed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
26 mins ago

@TuyenPham No, there is no sense in combining them like that. It's about using a whitelist vs a blacklist. The whitelist is /*.zsh, and the blacklist is /^*("~"|dpkg<...>). It's safer to use a whitelist, but if you have naming requirements that don't allow for files ending in .zsh, then you could at least opt for using a blacklist.
– JoL
27 secs ago

add a comment |

for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak)))(N.)) . $f. With .zsh means <..>s/**/^*.zsh("~"|dpkg<...>?
– Tuyen Pham
1 hour ago

You had redundant extra ) in bak))).
– Tuyen Pham
42 mins ago

1

@TuyenPham, thanks. Fixed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
26 mins ago

@TuyenPham No, there is no sense in combining them like that. It's about using a whitelist vs a blacklist. The whitelist is /*.zsh, and the blacklist is /^*("~"|dpkg<...>). It's safer to use a whitelist, but if you have naming requirements that don't allow for files ending in .zsh, then you could at least opt for using a blacklist.
– JoL
27 secs ago

for f (~/scripts/**/^*("~"|dpkg-(dist|old|new)|.(tmp|back|bak)))(N.)) . $f. With .zsh means <..>s/**/^*.zsh("~"|dpkg<...>?
– Tuyen Pham
1 hour ago

You had redundant extra ) in bak))).
– Tuyen Pham
42 mins ago

@TuyenPham, thanks. Fixed.
– Stéphane Chazelas
26 mins ago

@TuyenPham No, there is no sense in combining them like that. It's about using a whitelist vs a blacklist. The whitelist is /*.zsh, and the blacklist is /^*("~"|dpkg<...>). It's safer to use a whitelist, but if you have naming requirements that don't allow for files ending in .zsh, then you could at least opt for using a blacklist.
– JoL
27 secs ago

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Search This Blog

Iyfjky