Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: John Stumbles Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: calling script function on output of find Date: 16 Jul 2011 00:26:13 GMT Lines: 14 Message-ID: <98c455Fk2iU2@mid.individual.net> References: <97g5odFp36U1@mid.individual.net> <97qve1Fb0uU2@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net QIZ3rfiPRxUJ+L4vU3JaWgFRB29h2/A76J9SZuiiTkSDxWCwpE Cancel-Lock: sha1:OyfNG8HshS1n5iW6Bh4ZADerUZE= User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.misc:1819 On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 19:43:58 -0400, Bill Marcum wrote: > Then you should write a script containing that function. That seems an even more kludgy solution than the one I suggested (and implemented just to test it) of rewriting the script so that when it sees the switch --process_file it runs process_file() and calling -exec $0 -- process_file. At least that keeps all the code in one file instead of splitting it into two! -- John Stumbles I am neither for nor against apathy