would it be complicated to add an "exclude_pattern" parameter to
g.mlist/g.mremove?
Example: I want to select only the gpcp_1dd_p1d_*_count maps but not the monthly
counts:
g.mlist type=rast patt="gpcp_1dd_p1d_*_count"
What about
g.mlist type=rast patt="gpcp_1dd_p1d_???_count"
I think that should work with a shell script version of g.mlist anyway, as ? characters can be used to represent single characters in wildcard patterns passed to the ls command.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Paul Kelly
<paul-grass@stjohnspoint.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Markus
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Markus Neteler wrote:
Hi,
would it be complicated to add an "exclude_pattern" parameter to
g.mlist/g.mremove?
Example: I want to select only the gpcp_1dd_p1d_*_count maps but not the
monthly
counts:
g.mlist type=rast patt="gpcp_1dd_p1d_*_count"
What about
g.mlist type=rast patt="gpcp_1dd_p1d_???_count"
bingo
I think that should work with a shell script version of g.mlist anyway, as ?
characters can be used to represent single characters in wildcard patterns
passed to the ls command.
We could add the exclude option, but I'm not so sure if we really need it.
You can solve your problem by using a more specific wildcard if Paul's
trick doesn't work.
pat="gpcp_1dd_p1d_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_count"
It's a little lengthy, but it works. Any better examples where we might
want the exclude option?
Huidae
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:40:52PM +0100, Markus Neteler wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Hamish <hamish_b@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Markus wrote:
>> g.mlist type=rast patt="gpcp_1dd_p1d_*_count"
>> exclude="month"
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_1997_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_1998_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_1999_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2000_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2001_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2002_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2003_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2004_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2005_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2006_count
>> gpcp_1dd_p1d_2007_count
>>
>> I know that -r and -e are available but I failed to write
>> an exclusion regex.
>> And often just simple patterns are to be suppressed in the
>> selection.
>
>
> no idea about the C version, but with the shell script version it would
> be roughly like
>
> if [ -n "$GIS_OPT_EXCLUDE" ] ; then
> EXCLD_STR="| grep -v $GIS_OPT_EXCLUDE"
> else
> EXCLD_STR=""
> fi
>
>
> g.list * ... | ... $EXCLD_STR
We could add the exclude option, but I'm not so sure if we really need it.
You can solve your problem by using a more specific wildcard if Paul's
trick doesn't work.
pat="gpcp_1dd_p1d_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_count"
It's a little lengthy, but it works. Any better examples where we might
want the exclude option?
Also, you can always use 'g.mlist ... | grep -v ...'.
OTOH, adding e.g. G_set_ls_exclude_filter() wouldn't be much work.
Although it's theoretically possible to complement or "subtract"
regular expressions, in practice it's rather ugly, i.e. the result is
often far more complex than the original(s). And it isn't possible to
complement glob patterns.
While we're on the subject, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile
using glob() where it's available (i.e. everywhere except Windows),
instead constructing an equivalent[1] regexp.
[1] There are a number of differences between g.mlist's glob patterns
and glob(), e.g. it doesn't support complemented ranges, it interprets
metacharacters within ranges, etc.
> We could add the exclude option, but I'm not so sure if we really need it.
> You can solve your problem by using a more specific wildcard if Paul's
> trick doesn't work.
>
> pat="gpcp_1dd_p1d_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_count"
>
> It's a little lengthy, but it works. Any better examples where we might
> want the exclude option?
Also, you can always use 'g.mlist ... | grep -v ...'.
OTOH, adding e.g. G_set_ls_exclude_filter() wouldn't be much work.
Although it's theoretically possible to complement or "subtract"
regular expressions, in practice it's rather ugly, i.e. the result is
often far more complex than the original(s). And it isn't possible to
complement glob patterns.
I've now added G_set_ls_exclude_filter() and an exclude= option to
g.list.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Glynn Clements
<glynn@gclements.plus.com> wrote:
Huidae Cho wrote:
We could add the exclude option, but I'm not so sure if we really need it.
You can solve your problem by using a more specific wildcard if Paul's
trick doesn't work.
pat="gpcp_1dd_p1d_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]_count"
It's a little lengthy, but it works. Any better examples where we might
want the exclude option?
Imagine thousands of similar map names (derivatives of time series
elaborations), then wildcards won't suffice.
Also, you can always use 'g.mlist ... | grep -v ...'.
In a script it needs to be:
LIST=`g.mlist type=rast patt=... | grep -v ... | tr '\n' ',' | sed 's+,$++g`
which is already more complicated (not for me but for xx% of
the users).
OTOH, adding e.g. G_set_ls_exclude_filter() wouldn't be much work.
This would be pretty convenient.
Although it's theoretically possible to complement or "subtract"
regular expressions, in practice it's rather ugly, i.e. the result is
often far more complex than the original(s). And it isn't possible to
complement glob patterns.
While we're on the subject, I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile
using glob() where it's available (i.e. everywhere except Windows),
instead constructing an equivalent[1] regexp.
[1] There are a number of differences between g.mlist's glob patterns
and glob(), e.g. it doesn't support complemented ranges, it interprets
metacharacters within ranges, etc.
I have no idea, sorry... so cannot comment on "glob".
