On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 7:05 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't have a better way of checking the dir.c behavior. But I think
> the other half of Eric's question was: why can't we do this setup way
> more efficiently with "mkdir -p"?
I didn't really have that other half-question, as I understood the
portability ramifications. Rather, I just wanted to make sure the
reason I thought the code was doing the for-loop-plus-mv dance was
indeed correct, and that I wasn't overlooking something non-obvious. I
was also indirectly hinting that that bit of code might deserve an
in-code comment explaining why the for-loop is there so that someone
doesn't come along in the future and try replacing it with `mkdir -p`.
> I'd be suspicious that it would work portably because of the long path.
> But I think the perl I showed earlier would create it in much less time:
>
> $ time perl -e '
> for (reverse 1..400) {
> my $d = "directory$_";
> mkdir($d) and chdir($d) or die "mkdir($d): $!";
> }
> open(my $fh, ">", "some-file");
> '
Yep, this and your other Perl code snippet for removing the directory
seemed much nicer than the far more expensive shell for-loop-plus-mv
(especially for Windows folk).
