Obtaining the size of a file

[Bill Marriott]

John,

I hate to keep the thread going, but what was the objection to using a shell 
call? You can easily get a directory listing with filters and even hide the 
shell window ... might be faster than the other approaches if you're talking 
about a huge list of "the detailed files." And, instead of calling it once 
every iteration of a loop, you could do a "dir /s" to grab a whole tree and 
then process it with Rev's chunk expressions before you start looping.

- Bill

"John Craig" <jc at spl21.net> wrote in message 
news:462D2C5F.8030100 at spl21.net...
> Hi, Stephen.  I'm very comfortable with rev.  It became my 'weapon of 
> choice' very quickly once I discovered it.
>
> economic: using the minimum of time or resources necessary for 
> effectiveness
>
> One example is needing the size of a file in a folder of thousands. 
> Creating the output generated by 'the files' is not economical in this 
> case.
> However, as discussed in the thread, the same output can facilitate a 
> speedy routine if the entire output is required.  Both have merit.
> I had already 'rolled my own' as I didn't see another option, but wondered 
> if there was another way I hadn't discovered - hence the original post.