Obtaining the size of a file

[John Craig]

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.

JC


Stephen Barncard wrote:
>> Thanks for the info.  I am just of the opinion that the file 
>> functions in rev could possibly be more economical - it's as easy as 
>> that.
>
> By Economical, do you mean a command for every variation? The problem 
> with that is that the more definitions that are in the message path, 
> the slower Rev gets. If Rev made up a specific function for 
> everything, Rev might not perform as well, not to mention the 
> cross-platform sync, documentation and bug issues.
>
> I quite like it that Rev gives us the 'primitives' sometimes with 
> these things where we might want to 'roll our own' and quite frankly, 
> I look forward to writing efficient functions and handlers to do what 
> I need with the data.
>
> Once you get comfortable with Rev, you'll make up your own libraries 
> for what you need to do that stock Rev can't.