Reputation: 4208
I have a simple BASH command that looks like
for i in `seq 2`; do echo $i; done; > out.dat
When this runs the output of seq 2
is output to the terminal and nothing is output to the data file (out.dat)
I am expecting standard out to be redirected to out.dat like it does simply running the command seq 2 > out.dat
Upvotes: 73
Views: 111699
Reputation: 75478
Remove your semicolon.
for i in `seq 2`; do echo "$i"; done > out.dat
SUGGESTIONS
Also as suggested by Fredrik Pihl, try not to use external binaries when they are not needed, or at least when practically not:
for i in {1..2}; do echo "$i"; done > out.dat
for (( i = 1; i <= 2; ++i )); do echo "$i"; done > out.dat
for i in 1 2; do echo "$i"; done > out.dat
Also, be careful of outputs in words
that may cause pathname expansion.
for a in $(echo '*'); do echo "$a"; done
Would show your files instead of just a literal *
.
$()
is also recommended as a clearer syntax for command substitution in Bash and POSIX shells than backticks (`
), and it supports nesting.
The cleaner solutions as well for reading output to variables are
while read var; do
...
done < <(do something)
And
read ... < <(do something) ## Could be done on a loop or with readarray.
for a in "${array[@]}"; do
:
done
Using printf can also be an easier alternative with respect to the intended function:
printf '%s\n' {1..2} > out.dat
Upvotes: 107
Reputation: 82899
Another possibility, for the sake of completeness: You can move the output inside the loop, using >>
to append to the file, if it exists.
for i in `seq 2`; do echo $i >> out.dat; done;
Which one is better certainly depends on the use case. Writing the file in one go is certainly better than appending to it a thousand times. Also, if the loop contains multiple echo
statements, all of which shall go to the file, doing done > out.dat
is probably more readable and easier to maintain. The advantage of this solution, of course, is that it gives more flexibility.
Upvotes: 9