Is it possible to list file names starting with X or containing X?
As the title asks, is it possible to list files starting with X or containing X?
ls
is used to list files. Are there any options I can use so I can list the files beginning with or containing a specific letter?
command-line bash terminal
add a comment |
As the title asks, is it possible to list files starting with X or containing X?
ls
is used to list files. Are there any options I can use so I can list the files beginning with or containing a specific letter?
command-line bash terminal
add a comment |
As the title asks, is it possible to list files starting with X or containing X?
ls
is used to list files. Are there any options I can use so I can list the files beginning with or containing a specific letter?
command-line bash terminal
As the title asks, is it possible to list files starting with X or containing X?
ls
is used to list files. Are there any options I can use so I can list the files beginning with or containing a specific letter?
command-line bash terminal
command-line bash terminal
edited Apr 6 '16 at 9:27
tripleee
1,83432130
1,83432130
asked Nov 21 '10 at 3:42
irl_irlirl_irl
118117
118117
add a comment |
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
"Starting with" is just a specialization of "containing", so you can use the same for both.
ls *X*
1
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
1
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature ofls
, which can be disabled with the-d
option.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of usingls -- *X*
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
add a comment |
To do the "containing X" part, you would do:
ls | grep "X"
ls
- Lists all the files in the current directory
|
- Pipe, sends all output of the command before it as input to the command after it.
grep "X"
- Searches for text in the input given (here, through the pipe).
ls -1 | grep "^X"
ls
- Lists files in the current directory, one on each line, essential for the regular expression we will use with grep
.
|
- Pipe
grep "^X"
- This basically translates into: "The beginning of the line, and then X" so it will show files beginning with "X".
Hope this helps!
2
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
And you don't need to pass-1
option when pipingls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.
– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parsels
(and what do to instead)?
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
add a comment |
Why use ls *X*
? When you type this command, bash
already interprets the stars and expands them, so echo *X*
will do exactly the same.
But it won't list files of which the name begins with a dot. If you really want files, my best suggestion is:
find . -maxdepth 0 -type f -iname '*X*'
(the -maxdepth 0
prevents scanning subdirectories).
-maxdepth 0
can be done withls -d
. And dot files can be expanded withshopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
add a comment |
Using the wildcard character:
ls *X*
Will list all files containing "X"
ls X*
Will list all files starting with "X"
ls *X
Will list all files ending with "X"
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to usels -- *X
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
add a comment |
Those are great suggestions - IF YOU ARE USING LINUX! Using the "ls" command is almost the same as MS-DOS's DIR command. However, the ls command only lives in certain command line interpreters like C-shell and NOT in MS-DOS and certainly NOT MS-Windows.
So if you are asking about a Windows solution I might assume you haven't fully explored the Windows explorer (NOT to be confused with "Internet Explorer" either). For example, to view files alphabetically in Windows Explorer just open it up (click on My Computer, for example), make sure you can view by detail, navigate to the folder you want to sort and then click on the column called 'Name' to see all files starting with A followed by files starting with B and so on. Click on it again and you can see all files listed in reverse order where you first see all files starting with Z - click on it a third time and it's back to listing the A's first. But it doesn't stop there. You can then click on the date column (assuming you didn't deselect from the default menu settings and hide it or something) to show an alphabetized list with the most recently dated files listed first. You can even add more columns (through right-clicking) where you can add or delete display options in which you could even specify a heading that could display files according to a search formula or even with check boxes - and that's just for starts!
Then again, if you're old school, you could just use the DOS command line in a DOS box. For example, open up a DOS box (run "cmd.exe"), go to your directory/folder and type in "dir [star]x[star]" (without the quotes) to show all files with x in the name. Of course you can also redirect the output to another file too. The example there would be 'dir [star]x[star]>filename.txt' which would create a text file called 'filename.txt' and contain a list of all files with x in the name. Of course, typing in "dir x[star]" would show only files starting with the letter x. (Notice the subtle difference where x is placed in the command and the asterisk [star] wild card symbol?). And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could even write a batch file! Just don't forget the pause line or redirecting the output as it would be rather pointless otherwise. (Anyone remember DOS batch "programming"?! lol)
Hope it helps.
P.S. I had to substitute the asterisk character using [star] since this blog will not print them - sorry.
P.S.S. I know. I know! I probably can add the asterisk [star] character but I already posted. So please don't get hung up on it. I'll try to remember (how I'm posting) next time.
2
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f213300%2fis-it-possible-to-list-file-names-starting-with-x-or-containing-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
"Starting with" is just a specialization of "containing", so you can use the same for both.
ls *X*
1
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
1
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature ofls
, which can be disabled with the-d
option.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of usingls -- *X*
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
add a comment |
"Starting with" is just a specialization of "containing", so you can use the same for both.
ls *X*
1
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
1
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature ofls
, which can be disabled with the-d
option.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of usingls -- *X*
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
add a comment |
"Starting with" is just a specialization of "containing", so you can use the same for both.
ls *X*
"Starting with" is just a specialization of "containing", so you can use the same for both.
ls *X*
answered Nov 21 '10 at 3:53
Ignacio Vazquez-AbramsIgnacio Vazquez-Abrams
96.3k6155211
96.3k6155211
1
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
1
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature ofls
, which can be disabled with the-d
option.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of usingls -- *X*
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
add a comment |
1
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
1
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature ofls
, which can be disabled with the-d
option.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of usingls -- *X*
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
1
1
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
This has the checkmark, but I don't think it answers the question. This shows the contents of each subdirectory of the current folder whose names contain X. It does NOT show a list of all the current folder's contents that contain X.
– 75th Trombone
Aug 4 '14 at 16:41
1
1
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature of
ls
, which can be disabled with the -d
option.– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
@75thTrombone Not sure I understand what you are saying. The wildcard matches file names with X anywhere in them; the listing of the contents of matching subdirectories is a (mis-?)feature of
ls
, which can be disabled with the -d
option.– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:37
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of using
ls -- *X*
.– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
To make this safe and work in all intended cases, one should form a habit of using
ls -- *X*
.– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 20:09
add a comment |
To do the "containing X" part, you would do:
ls | grep "X"
ls
- Lists all the files in the current directory
|
- Pipe, sends all output of the command before it as input to the command after it.
grep "X"
- Searches for text in the input given (here, through the pipe).
ls -1 | grep "^X"
ls
- Lists files in the current directory, one on each line, essential for the regular expression we will use with grep
.
|
- Pipe
grep "^X"
- This basically translates into: "The beginning of the line, and then X" so it will show files beginning with "X".
Hope this helps!
2
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
And you don't need to pass-1
option when pipingls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.
– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parsels
(and what do to instead)?
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
add a comment |
To do the "containing X" part, you would do:
ls | grep "X"
ls
- Lists all the files in the current directory
|
- Pipe, sends all output of the command before it as input to the command after it.
grep "X"
- Searches for text in the input given (here, through the pipe).
ls -1 | grep "^X"
ls
- Lists files in the current directory, one on each line, essential for the regular expression we will use with grep
.
|
- Pipe
grep "^X"
- This basically translates into: "The beginning of the line, and then X" so it will show files beginning with "X".
Hope this helps!
2
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
And you don't need to pass-1
option when pipingls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.
– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parsels
(and what do to instead)?
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
add a comment |
To do the "containing X" part, you would do:
ls | grep "X"
ls
- Lists all the files in the current directory
|
- Pipe, sends all output of the command before it as input to the command after it.
grep "X"
- Searches for text in the input given (here, through the pipe).
ls -1 | grep "^X"
ls
- Lists files in the current directory, one on each line, essential for the regular expression we will use with grep
.
|
- Pipe
grep "^X"
- This basically translates into: "The beginning of the line, and then X" so it will show files beginning with "X".
Hope this helps!
To do the "containing X" part, you would do:
ls | grep "X"
ls
- Lists all the files in the current directory
|
- Pipe, sends all output of the command before it as input to the command after it.
grep "X"
- Searches for text in the input given (here, through the pipe).
ls -1 | grep "^X"
ls
- Lists files in the current directory, one on each line, essential for the regular expression we will use with grep
.
|
- Pipe
grep "^X"
- This basically translates into: "The beginning of the line, and then X" so it will show files beginning with "X".
Hope this helps!
answered Nov 21 '10 at 4:04
WuffersWuffers
13.6k1279117
13.6k1279117
2
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
And you don't need to pass-1
option when pipingls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.
– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parsels
(and what do to instead)?
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
add a comment |
2
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
And you don't need to pass-1
option when pipingls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.
– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parsels
(and what do to instead)?
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
2
2
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
– Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
Nov 21 '10 at 4:08
And you don't need to pass
-1
option when piping ls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
And you don't need to pass
-1
option when piping ls
output, it only outputs compact listing to ttys.– whitequark
Nov 21 '10 at 7:52
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parse
ls
(and what do to instead)?– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
not only this is a lot slower, it's also a bad idea. see Why not parse
ls
(and what do to instead)?– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:44
add a comment |
Why use ls *X*
? When you type this command, bash
already interprets the stars and expands them, so echo *X*
will do exactly the same.
But it won't list files of which the name begins with a dot. If you really want files, my best suggestion is:
find . -maxdepth 0 -type f -iname '*X*'
(the -maxdepth 0
prevents scanning subdirectories).
-maxdepth 0
can be done withls -d
. And dot files can be expanded withshopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
add a comment |
Why use ls *X*
? When you type this command, bash
already interprets the stars and expands them, so echo *X*
will do exactly the same.
But it won't list files of which the name begins with a dot. If you really want files, my best suggestion is:
find . -maxdepth 0 -type f -iname '*X*'
(the -maxdepth 0
prevents scanning subdirectories).
-maxdepth 0
can be done withls -d
. And dot files can be expanded withshopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
add a comment |
Why use ls *X*
? When you type this command, bash
already interprets the stars and expands them, so echo *X*
will do exactly the same.
But it won't list files of which the name begins with a dot. If you really want files, my best suggestion is:
find . -maxdepth 0 -type f -iname '*X*'
(the -maxdepth 0
prevents scanning subdirectories).
Why use ls *X*
? When you type this command, bash
already interprets the stars and expands them, so echo *X*
will do exactly the same.
But it won't list files of which the name begins with a dot. If you really want files, my best suggestion is:
find . -maxdepth 0 -type f -iname '*X*'
(the -maxdepth 0
prevents scanning subdirectories).
answered Nov 21 '10 at 9:34
BenoitBenoit
6,03631627
6,03631627
-maxdepth 0
can be done withls -d
. And dot files can be expanded withshopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
add a comment |
-maxdepth 0
can be done withls -d
. And dot files can be expanded withshopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
-maxdepth 0
can be done with ls -d
. And dot files can be expanded with shopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
-maxdepth 0
can be done with ls -d
. And dot files can be expanded with shopt -s dotglob
– phuclv
Feb 3 at 11:47
add a comment |
Using the wildcard character:
ls *X*
Will list all files containing "X"
ls X*
Will list all files starting with "X"
ls *X
Will list all files ending with "X"
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to usels -- *X
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
add a comment |
Using the wildcard character:
ls *X*
Will list all files containing "X"
ls X*
Will list all files starting with "X"
ls *X
Will list all files ending with "X"
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to usels -- *X
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
add a comment |
Using the wildcard character:
ls *X*
Will list all files containing "X"
ls X*
Will list all files starting with "X"
ls *X
Will list all files ending with "X"
Using the wildcard character:
ls *X*
Will list all files containing "X"
ls X*
Will list all files starting with "X"
ls *X
Will list all files ending with "X"
answered Feb 3 at 11:36
TheoTheo
1
1
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to usels -- *X
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
add a comment |
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to usels -- *X
.
– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:
touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to use ls -- *X
.– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
While your contribution is much apprieciated, it is unfortunately only partly correct. Try this:
touch -- '-X' && ls *X
. Under MacOS, you'll get an error and under most Linux distributions you'll get a subset of the actual list of all files. A more complete solution would be to use ls -- *X
.– Moreaki
Feb 3 at 19:34
add a comment |
Those are great suggestions - IF YOU ARE USING LINUX! Using the "ls" command is almost the same as MS-DOS's DIR command. However, the ls command only lives in certain command line interpreters like C-shell and NOT in MS-DOS and certainly NOT MS-Windows.
So if you are asking about a Windows solution I might assume you haven't fully explored the Windows explorer (NOT to be confused with "Internet Explorer" either). For example, to view files alphabetically in Windows Explorer just open it up (click on My Computer, for example), make sure you can view by detail, navigate to the folder you want to sort and then click on the column called 'Name' to see all files starting with A followed by files starting with B and so on. Click on it again and you can see all files listed in reverse order where you first see all files starting with Z - click on it a third time and it's back to listing the A's first. But it doesn't stop there. You can then click on the date column (assuming you didn't deselect from the default menu settings and hide it or something) to show an alphabetized list with the most recently dated files listed first. You can even add more columns (through right-clicking) where you can add or delete display options in which you could even specify a heading that could display files according to a search formula or even with check boxes - and that's just for starts!
Then again, if you're old school, you could just use the DOS command line in a DOS box. For example, open up a DOS box (run "cmd.exe"), go to your directory/folder and type in "dir [star]x[star]" (without the quotes) to show all files with x in the name. Of course you can also redirect the output to another file too. The example there would be 'dir [star]x[star]>filename.txt' which would create a text file called 'filename.txt' and contain a list of all files with x in the name. Of course, typing in "dir x[star]" would show only files starting with the letter x. (Notice the subtle difference where x is placed in the command and the asterisk [star] wild card symbol?). And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could even write a batch file! Just don't forget the pause line or redirecting the output as it would be rather pointless otherwise. (Anyone remember DOS batch "programming"?! lol)
Hope it helps.
P.S. I had to substitute the asterisk character using [star] since this blog will not print them - sorry.
P.S.S. I know. I know! I probably can add the asterisk [star] character but I already posted. So please don't get hung up on it. I'll try to remember (how I'm posting) next time.
2
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
add a comment |
Those are great suggestions - IF YOU ARE USING LINUX! Using the "ls" command is almost the same as MS-DOS's DIR command. However, the ls command only lives in certain command line interpreters like C-shell and NOT in MS-DOS and certainly NOT MS-Windows.
So if you are asking about a Windows solution I might assume you haven't fully explored the Windows explorer (NOT to be confused with "Internet Explorer" either). For example, to view files alphabetically in Windows Explorer just open it up (click on My Computer, for example), make sure you can view by detail, navigate to the folder you want to sort and then click on the column called 'Name' to see all files starting with A followed by files starting with B and so on. Click on it again and you can see all files listed in reverse order where you first see all files starting with Z - click on it a third time and it's back to listing the A's first. But it doesn't stop there. You can then click on the date column (assuming you didn't deselect from the default menu settings and hide it or something) to show an alphabetized list with the most recently dated files listed first. You can even add more columns (through right-clicking) where you can add or delete display options in which you could even specify a heading that could display files according to a search formula or even with check boxes - and that's just for starts!
Then again, if you're old school, you could just use the DOS command line in a DOS box. For example, open up a DOS box (run "cmd.exe"), go to your directory/folder and type in "dir [star]x[star]" (without the quotes) to show all files with x in the name. Of course you can also redirect the output to another file too. The example there would be 'dir [star]x[star]>filename.txt' which would create a text file called 'filename.txt' and contain a list of all files with x in the name. Of course, typing in "dir x[star]" would show only files starting with the letter x. (Notice the subtle difference where x is placed in the command and the asterisk [star] wild card symbol?). And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could even write a batch file! Just don't forget the pause line or redirecting the output as it would be rather pointless otherwise. (Anyone remember DOS batch "programming"?! lol)
Hope it helps.
P.S. I had to substitute the asterisk character using [star] since this blog will not print them - sorry.
P.S.S. I know. I know! I probably can add the asterisk [star] character but I already posted. So please don't get hung up on it. I'll try to remember (how I'm posting) next time.
2
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
add a comment |
Those are great suggestions - IF YOU ARE USING LINUX! Using the "ls" command is almost the same as MS-DOS's DIR command. However, the ls command only lives in certain command line interpreters like C-shell and NOT in MS-DOS and certainly NOT MS-Windows.
So if you are asking about a Windows solution I might assume you haven't fully explored the Windows explorer (NOT to be confused with "Internet Explorer" either). For example, to view files alphabetically in Windows Explorer just open it up (click on My Computer, for example), make sure you can view by detail, navigate to the folder you want to sort and then click on the column called 'Name' to see all files starting with A followed by files starting with B and so on. Click on it again and you can see all files listed in reverse order where you first see all files starting with Z - click on it a third time and it's back to listing the A's first. But it doesn't stop there. You can then click on the date column (assuming you didn't deselect from the default menu settings and hide it or something) to show an alphabetized list with the most recently dated files listed first. You can even add more columns (through right-clicking) where you can add or delete display options in which you could even specify a heading that could display files according to a search formula or even with check boxes - and that's just for starts!
Then again, if you're old school, you could just use the DOS command line in a DOS box. For example, open up a DOS box (run "cmd.exe"), go to your directory/folder and type in "dir [star]x[star]" (without the quotes) to show all files with x in the name. Of course you can also redirect the output to another file too. The example there would be 'dir [star]x[star]>filename.txt' which would create a text file called 'filename.txt' and contain a list of all files with x in the name. Of course, typing in "dir x[star]" would show only files starting with the letter x. (Notice the subtle difference where x is placed in the command and the asterisk [star] wild card symbol?). And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could even write a batch file! Just don't forget the pause line or redirecting the output as it would be rather pointless otherwise. (Anyone remember DOS batch "programming"?! lol)
Hope it helps.
P.S. I had to substitute the asterisk character using [star] since this blog will not print them - sorry.
P.S.S. I know. I know! I probably can add the asterisk [star] character but I already posted. So please don't get hung up on it. I'll try to remember (how I'm posting) next time.
Those are great suggestions - IF YOU ARE USING LINUX! Using the "ls" command is almost the same as MS-DOS's DIR command. However, the ls command only lives in certain command line interpreters like C-shell and NOT in MS-DOS and certainly NOT MS-Windows.
So if you are asking about a Windows solution I might assume you haven't fully explored the Windows explorer (NOT to be confused with "Internet Explorer" either). For example, to view files alphabetically in Windows Explorer just open it up (click on My Computer, for example), make sure you can view by detail, navigate to the folder you want to sort and then click on the column called 'Name' to see all files starting with A followed by files starting with B and so on. Click on it again and you can see all files listed in reverse order where you first see all files starting with Z - click on it a third time and it's back to listing the A's first. But it doesn't stop there. You can then click on the date column (assuming you didn't deselect from the default menu settings and hide it or something) to show an alphabetized list with the most recently dated files listed first. You can even add more columns (through right-clicking) where you can add or delete display options in which you could even specify a heading that could display files according to a search formula or even with check boxes - and that's just for starts!
Then again, if you're old school, you could just use the DOS command line in a DOS box. For example, open up a DOS box (run "cmd.exe"), go to your directory/folder and type in "dir [star]x[star]" (without the quotes) to show all files with x in the name. Of course you can also redirect the output to another file too. The example there would be 'dir [star]x[star]>filename.txt' which would create a text file called 'filename.txt' and contain a list of all files with x in the name. Of course, typing in "dir x[star]" would show only files starting with the letter x. (Notice the subtle difference where x is placed in the command and the asterisk [star] wild card symbol?). And if you really wanted to go nuts, you could even write a batch file! Just don't forget the pause line or redirecting the output as it would be rather pointless otherwise. (Anyone remember DOS batch "programming"?! lol)
Hope it helps.
P.S. I had to substitute the asterisk character using [star] since this blog will not print them - sorry.
P.S.S. I know. I know! I probably can add the asterisk [star] character but I already posted. So please don't get hung up on it. I'll try to remember (how I'm posting) next time.
edited Nov 21 '10 at 8:08
answered Nov 21 '10 at 7:58
AnonymousAnonymous
442
442
2
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
add a comment |
2
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
2
2
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
"ls" is more than likely available if bash already is. "ls" has nothing to do with the C-shell. "bash" is absolutely not limited to Linux. I run both of them it on many flavors of Unix, Windows and several more exotic OSes.
– jlliagre
Nov 21 '10 at 8:33
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
This is not a "blog". You get a literal asterisk by escaping it with a backslash. See the formatting help which is displayed in the sidebar while you are editing.
– tripleee
Apr 6 '16 at 7:41
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f213300%2fis-it-possible-to-list-file-names-starting-with-x-or-containing-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown