I am trying to use this command ls -p | egrep "\<[A-Z]+\>" to print all uppercase file and dir names with dir names having / appended. I do not understand why my command works even though I said to grep only file/dir names with all upper case letters. I get the correct output but don't understand how a dir like XXX/ is also listed by grep.

  • By default, grep outputs lines that contain the pattern. To output only whole-line matches, you would need to add -x, or anchor the pattern with ^ and $. Oct 20, 2019 at 0:26
  • In what way does grep "disregard the output"? How does what it produces differ from what you expect it to produce? Oct 20, 2019 at 2:08
  • Why not parse ls?
    – Cyrus
    Oct 20, 2019 at 19:35

3 Answers 3


I presume that you question is "why does DIRNAME/ match the extended regular expression \<[A-Z]+\>, even though it has a character in it that is not an uppercase letter (/)?".

Your regular expression matches anything that contains a word that is all uppercased:

$ printf '%s\n' "this is not matched" "this IS matched" | egrep "\<[A-Z]+\>"
this IS matched

The \< and \> matches a zero-width "word boundary", i.e. the space between a "word character" and a character that is not of that type (or the start/end of the line). A word character is any character in the class [[:alpha:]_] (letters and underscore).

Your expression matches something like DIRNAME/ since DIRNAME matches the expression (there's a word boundary before the D and after the E).

To filter out specific names from a directory listing, don't use grep or other line-based text manipulation tools. Filenames can contain newlines, so line-based tools would have a hard time doing the right thing unless you impose restrictions on filenames.

Instead, to get all uppercase names in a directory in bash:

$ ls -p -d *
DIR/     FILE     TEST123  dir/     file     test123
$ ls -p -d !(*[[:lower:]]*)
DIR/     FILE     TEST123

This requires shopt -s extglob to enable extended globbing patterns. The extended globbing pattern !(*[[:lower:]]*) matches anything that does not contain any lowercase letters.

Note that the pattern does not care about the / that ls -p adds to directory names. This is because the pattern matches filenames, and there is no filename containing the character /. Also, the pattern is expanded before ls is invoked.

If you additionally want to weed out names containing digits, use

$ ls -p -d !(*[[:lower:][:digit:]]*)

(this excludes any name that contains at least one lowercase letter or digit) or,

$ ls -p -d !(*[[:lower:]]*|*[[:digit:]]*)

(this excludes any name that contains at least one lowercase letter, and also excludes any name that contains at least one digit).


The syntax \> means match at end of word. What you want is probably

ls | egrep "^[A-Z.]+$"

where ^ matches at the beginning of the line and and $ matches at the end of the line.

$  ls -p | egrep "[A-Z]+"
$  ls -p ???             
ABC  fif  out

For me it was the word-boundary matching that changed the behaviour.

ls -p | egrep "\<[A-Z]+\>" gives no output in my case.

Compare ls -f |cat and ls -p |cat. When you start tweaking your regex you will find out: one shouldn't bother with these things: too complicated, and in the end it is not advised to parse ls systematically: ls output is only a "report", not a list of files to work with i.e. to do operations on. (Like a screenshot of a "explorer" window in MS Windows, almost.)

$  ls -p |cat 

$  ls -f |cat 

Even the ordering is different; that slash / should not be used to filter directories.

It takes something like find . -type d (lists only directories, in all subdirs also) and then you have a good starting point for any filesystem search.

$  find . -type d 

Your specifation is right between a simple ls (maybe with a grep trick) and some clean solution with find. I don't give one - all depends on your temperament and your future plans regarding listing of "raw" filesystem info.

This illustrates the difference:

 $  find . -name "d1"

$  ls -R |grep d1

With ls-grep you get "additional" lines and characters. In a desperate situation, in the shell interactively: why not? (you know that file "d1" is somewhere)

But anything scripted should rely on find and it's many possibilities. It turns your filesystem into a database: query and report: two steps. ls is only the quick all-in-one tool on the command line.

$ ls -p -d !(*[[:lower:]]*|*[[:digit:]]*)

Is this really serious? What about some strategical advice, instead of this? See comments etc.

O maybe you want to be around for every one liner any user ever could come up with. So baroque. Me I do roots style.

  • what system are you running where egrep "\<[A-Z]+\>" doesn't work? The word-break matches aren't standard, so it's possible they don't work everywhere, but they do seem to be well-supported in Linux (and FreeBSD, if I understand correctly)
    – ilkkachu
    Oct 20, 2019 at 8:36
  • @ilkkachu I have "normal" arch. My /usr/bin/egrep is just exec grep -E ..., and that is GNU grep 3.3. ls -p | cat -A shows all the colors (as line noise) of course. I just copy pasted. This file-and-dir-with-slash thing is a non-problem. dmesg -L=always |less -R or ls -R |less -R I find more interesting. (regex is a "separate" thing, only quite connected to ls -- mantra is dont parse (OK but what else?))
    – user373503
    Oct 20, 2019 at 9:22
  • right, it's the colors that break it for you. Try it with ls --color=auto | grep .... if you have ls aliased to ls --color.
    – ilkkachu
    Oct 20, 2019 at 9:37
  • @ilkkachu Either you are a very clever bot or a not so clever teacher. I am neither bot, nor "not so clever", nor a teacher. Why on earth should I try this? What about my answer? Too long? Not answering the Q? I have to read a link first?
    – user373503
    Oct 20, 2019 at 9:44
  • I didn't say you're a bot, I only suggested that the coloring might be the difference between your case and that of the OP. That is, in case you care and didn't already find out a reason for that. If you don't care, or you already knew it, then nevermind.
    – ilkkachu
    Oct 20, 2019 at 9:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .