If processing the list of files is equivalent to processing the concatenation of the list of files, then you can `ls | xargs cat | my-util`. If it is not, then as I argued in a cousin comment I think that's another good case to support accepting file names.
>`ls | xargs cat | my-util`
lol, this is really turning the whole 'useless use of cat' thing on its head.
`cat` is short for conCATenate. Here it is being used to concatenate files. This is the canonical useful use of cat.
The problem with that example is parsing `ls` output.
> The problem with that example is parsing `ls` output.
Yeah, I left that alone to keep things simpler and was assuming `ls` was simply being used as short-hand for "some unspecified approach to outputting file names". In a context where hard-to-handle filenames are possible, you'd of course need to do something a little more robust.
Yes, that's what i was getting at. The use of `cat` isn't useless (for once) — the use of `ls` and `xargs` is.
so, how to avoid parsing ls? maybe use cat *, or something?
I know that it could be done with a loop, but that's a little unwieldy compared to `ls | xargs my-cli`