Checking for the existence of multiple directories












5















I want to check for the existence of multiple directories, say, dir1, dir2 and dir3, in the working directory.



I have the following



if [ -d "$PWD/dir1" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir2" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir3" ]; then
echo True
else
echo False
fi


But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this. Do not assume that there is a rule in the names of the directories.



The goal is to check for the existence of a few directories and for the nonexistence of others.



I'm using Bash, but portable code is preferred.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    5















    I want to check for the existence of multiple directories, say, dir1, dir2 and dir3, in the working directory.



    I have the following



    if [ -d "$PWD/dir1" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir2" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir3" ]; then
    echo True
    else
    echo False
    fi


    But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this. Do not assume that there is a rule in the names of the directories.



    The goal is to check for the existence of a few directories and for the nonexistence of others.



    I'm using Bash, but portable code is preferred.










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      5












      5








      5








      I want to check for the existence of multiple directories, say, dir1, dir2 and dir3, in the working directory.



      I have the following



      if [ -d "$PWD/dir1" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir2" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir3" ]; then
      echo True
      else
      echo False
      fi


      But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this. Do not assume that there is a rule in the names of the directories.



      The goal is to check for the existence of a few directories and for the nonexistence of others.



      I'm using Bash, but portable code is preferred.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I want to check for the existence of multiple directories, say, dir1, dir2 and dir3, in the working directory.



      I have the following



      if [ -d "$PWD/dir1" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir2" ] && [ -d "$PWD/dir3" ]; then
      echo True
      else
      echo False
      fi


      But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this. Do not assume that there is a rule in the names of the directories.



      The goal is to check for the existence of a few directories and for the nonexistence of others.



      I'm using Bash, but portable code is preferred.







      shell-script shell files directory control-flow






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 6 hours ago







      Elegance













      New contributor




      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 8 hours ago









      EleganceElegance

      283




      283




      New contributor




      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Elegance is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5














          If you already expect them to be directories and are just checking whether they all exist, you could use the exit code from the ls utility to determine whether one or more "errors occurred":



          ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo All there


          I redirect the output and stderr to /dev/null in order to make it disappear, since we only care about the exit code from ls, not its output. Anything that's written to /dev/null disappears -- it is not written to your terminal.






          share|improve this answer


























          • Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

            – Elegance
            7 hours ago











          • @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

            – Jeff Schaller
            7 hours ago











          • Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

            – Elegance
            6 hours ago













          • It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

            – Jeff Schaller
            6 hours ago






          • 1





            I got it finally. Thanks.

            – Elegance
            6 hours ago



















          7














          I would loop:



          result=True
          for dir in
          "$PWD/dir1"
          "$PWD/dir2"
          "$PWD/dir3"
          do
          if ! [ -d "$dir" ]; then
          result=False
          break
          fi
          done
          echo "$result"


          The break causes the loop to short-circuit, just like your chain of &&






          share|improve this answer































            4














            A loop might be more elegant:



            arr=("$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2")
            for d in "${arr[@]}"; do
            if [ -d "$d"]; then
            echo True
            else
            echo False
            fi
            done


            This is Bash. A more portable one is Sh. There you can use the positional array:



            set -- "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2"


            Then to loop over it use "$@".






            share|improve this answer

































              1














              Why not just:



              if [ -d "dir1" -a -d "dir2" -a -d "dir3" ]; then
              echo True
              else
              echo False
              fi





              share|improve this answer
























              • This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                – Jeff Schaller
                5 hours ago






              • 2





                Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                – Elegance
                4 hours ago













              • @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                – David Conrad
                1 hour ago











              • @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                – David Conrad
                1 hour ago











              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "106"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });






              Elegance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503830%2fchecking-for-the-existence-of-multiple-directories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              5














              If you already expect them to be directories and are just checking whether they all exist, you could use the exit code from the ls utility to determine whether one or more "errors occurred":



              ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo All there


              I redirect the output and stderr to /dev/null in order to make it disappear, since we only care about the exit code from ls, not its output. Anything that's written to /dev/null disappears -- it is not written to your terminal.






              share|improve this answer


























              • Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

                – Elegance
                7 hours ago











              • @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

                – Jeff Schaller
                7 hours ago











              • Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago













              • It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

                – Jeff Schaller
                6 hours ago






              • 1





                I got it finally. Thanks.

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago
















              5














              If you already expect them to be directories and are just checking whether they all exist, you could use the exit code from the ls utility to determine whether one or more "errors occurred":



              ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo All there


              I redirect the output and stderr to /dev/null in order to make it disappear, since we only care about the exit code from ls, not its output. Anything that's written to /dev/null disappears -- it is not written to your terminal.






              share|improve this answer


























              • Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

                – Elegance
                7 hours ago











              • @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

                – Jeff Schaller
                7 hours ago











              • Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago













              • It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

                – Jeff Schaller
                6 hours ago






              • 1





                I got it finally. Thanks.

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago














              5












              5








              5







              If you already expect them to be directories and are just checking whether they all exist, you could use the exit code from the ls utility to determine whether one or more "errors occurred":



              ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo All there


              I redirect the output and stderr to /dev/null in order to make it disappear, since we only care about the exit code from ls, not its output. Anything that's written to /dev/null disappears -- it is not written to your terminal.






              share|improve this answer















              If you already expect them to be directories and are just checking whether they all exist, you could use the exit code from the ls utility to determine whether one or more "errors occurred":



              ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo All there


              I redirect the output and stderr to /dev/null in order to make it disappear, since we only care about the exit code from ls, not its output. Anything that's written to /dev/null disappears -- it is not written to your terminal.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited 7 hours ago

























              answered 8 hours ago









              Jeff SchallerJeff Schaller

              42.7k1159136




              42.7k1159136













              • Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

                – Elegance
                7 hours ago











              • @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

                – Jeff Schaller
                7 hours ago











              • Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago













              • It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

                – Jeff Schaller
                6 hours ago






              • 1





                I got it finally. Thanks.

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago



















              • Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

                – Elegance
                7 hours ago











              • @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

                – Jeff Schaller
                7 hours ago











              • Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago













              • It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

                – Jeff Schaller
                6 hours ago






              • 1





                I got it finally. Thanks.

                – Elegance
                6 hours ago

















              Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

              – Elegance
              7 hours ago





              Can you help me understand this command? I know what file descriptors are. I know 1 is stdout, 2 is stderr and I know what redirecting is. I don't understand the significance of /dev/null, and I do not know how to parse the command.

              – Elegance
              7 hours ago













              @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

              – Jeff Schaller
              7 hours ago





              @Elegance I added a little explanation. For more in-depth answers regarding /dev/null, see unix.stackexchange.com/questions/163352/… and unix.stackexchange.com/questions/438130/…

              – Jeff Schaller
              7 hours ago













              Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

              – Elegance
              6 hours ago







              Still trying to figure out how the syntax works. I read that &>filename redirects both stdout and stderr to filename. So couldn't the command be simplified (at least to me it is more simple) as ls "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2" &>/dev/null && echo All there?

              – Elegance
              6 hours ago















              It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

              – Jeff Schaller
              6 hours ago





              It could, but not portably -- plain sh does not understand &>; it would misinterpret that as "run me in the background and send stdout to the redirection". I spelled it out from habit and kept it there because of the "portable code" preference.

              – Jeff Schaller
              6 hours ago




              1




              1





              I got it finally. Thanks.

              – Elegance
              6 hours ago





              I got it finally. Thanks.

              – Elegance
              6 hours ago













              7














              I would loop:



              result=True
              for dir in
              "$PWD/dir1"
              "$PWD/dir2"
              "$PWD/dir3"
              do
              if ! [ -d "$dir" ]; then
              result=False
              break
              fi
              done
              echo "$result"


              The break causes the loop to short-circuit, just like your chain of &&






              share|improve this answer




























                7














                I would loop:



                result=True
                for dir in
                "$PWD/dir1"
                "$PWD/dir2"
                "$PWD/dir3"
                do
                if ! [ -d "$dir" ]; then
                result=False
                break
                fi
                done
                echo "$result"


                The break causes the loop to short-circuit, just like your chain of &&






                share|improve this answer


























                  7












                  7








                  7







                  I would loop:



                  result=True
                  for dir in
                  "$PWD/dir1"
                  "$PWD/dir2"
                  "$PWD/dir3"
                  do
                  if ! [ -d "$dir" ]; then
                  result=False
                  break
                  fi
                  done
                  echo "$result"


                  The break causes the loop to short-circuit, just like your chain of &&






                  share|improve this answer













                  I would loop:



                  result=True
                  for dir in
                  "$PWD/dir1"
                  "$PWD/dir2"
                  "$PWD/dir3"
                  do
                  if ! [ -d "$dir" ]; then
                  result=False
                  break
                  fi
                  done
                  echo "$result"


                  The break causes the loop to short-circuit, just like your chain of &&







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered 8 hours ago









                  glenn jackmanglenn jackman

                  52.1k572112




                  52.1k572112























                      4














                      A loop might be more elegant:



                      arr=("$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2")
                      for d in "${arr[@]}"; do
                      if [ -d "$d"]; then
                      echo True
                      else
                      echo False
                      fi
                      done


                      This is Bash. A more portable one is Sh. There you can use the positional array:



                      set -- "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2"


                      Then to loop over it use "$@".






                      share|improve this answer






























                        4














                        A loop might be more elegant:



                        arr=("$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2")
                        for d in "${arr[@]}"; do
                        if [ -d "$d"]; then
                        echo True
                        else
                        echo False
                        fi
                        done


                        This is Bash. A more portable one is Sh. There you can use the positional array:



                        set -- "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2"


                        Then to loop over it use "$@".






                        share|improve this answer




























                          4












                          4








                          4







                          A loop might be more elegant:



                          arr=("$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2")
                          for d in "${arr[@]}"; do
                          if [ -d "$d"]; then
                          echo True
                          else
                          echo False
                          fi
                          done


                          This is Bash. A more portable one is Sh. There you can use the positional array:



                          set -- "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2"


                          Then to loop over it use "$@".






                          share|improve this answer















                          A loop might be more elegant:



                          arr=("$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2")
                          for d in "${arr[@]}"; do
                          if [ -d "$d"]; then
                          echo True
                          else
                          echo False
                          fi
                          done


                          This is Bash. A more portable one is Sh. There you can use the positional array:



                          set -- "$PWD/dir1" "$PWD/dir2" "$PWD/dir2"


                          Then to loop over it use "$@".







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited 8 hours ago

























                          answered 8 hours ago









                          TomaszTomasz

                          9,85652965




                          9,85652965























                              1














                              Why not just:



                              if [ -d "dir1" -a -d "dir2" -a -d "dir3" ]; then
                              echo True
                              else
                              echo False
                              fi





                              share|improve this answer
























                              • This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                                – Jeff Schaller
                                5 hours ago






                              • 2





                                Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                                – Elegance
                                4 hours ago













                              • @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago











                              • @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago
















                              1














                              Why not just:



                              if [ -d "dir1" -a -d "dir2" -a -d "dir3" ]; then
                              echo True
                              else
                              echo False
                              fi





                              share|improve this answer
























                              • This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                                – Jeff Schaller
                                5 hours ago






                              • 2





                                Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                                – Elegance
                                4 hours ago













                              • @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago











                              • @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago














                              1












                              1








                              1







                              Why not just:



                              if [ -d "dir1" -a -d "dir2" -a -d "dir3" ]; then
                              echo True
                              else
                              echo False
                              fi





                              share|improve this answer













                              Why not just:



                              if [ -d "dir1" -a -d "dir2" -a -d "dir3" ]; then
                              echo True
                              else
                              echo False
                              fi






                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered 5 hours ago









                              David ConradDavid Conrad

                              1414




                              1414













                              • This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                                – Jeff Schaller
                                5 hours ago






                              • 2





                                Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                                – Elegance
                                4 hours ago













                              • @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago











                              • @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago



















                              • This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                                – Jeff Schaller
                                5 hours ago






                              • 2





                                Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                                – Elegance
                                4 hours ago













                              • @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago











                              • @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                                – David Conrad
                                1 hour ago

















                              This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                              – Jeff Schaller
                              5 hours ago





                              This is essentially what the OP started with, But I suspect there is a more elegant way of doing this

                              – Jeff Schaller
                              5 hours ago




                              2




                              2





                              Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                              – Elegance
                              4 hours ago







                              Also POSIX discourages the use of -a: "-a and -o binary primaries (...) operators have been marked obsolescent": pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799

                              – Elegance
                              4 hours ago















                              @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                              – David Conrad
                              1 hour ago





                              @JeffSchaller It's more terse since it does it all in one call to test.

                              – David Conrad
                              1 hour ago













                              @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                              – David Conrad
                              1 hour ago





                              @Elegance They're still supported on all the systems I use, and probably will be a hundred years from now.

                              – David Conrad
                              1 hour ago










                              Elegance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              Elegance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                              Elegance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              Elegance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503830%2fchecking-for-the-existence-of-multiple-directories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Knooppunt Holsloot

                              Altaar (religie)

                              Gregoriusmis