On Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:09:59 PM Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:01:21PM -0400, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > Oh, but in case it wasn't very clear, my intension wasn't so much a > > specific recommendation of what might work, but instead, a > > recommendation on a methodology to find the problem one's self. > > Unfortunately, "remove random parts of the syntax and see what happens" > tends to be a poor approach, especially with find(1). There may be > some other kinds of problems where that works well, but it wouldn't be > my recommendation in general practice.
Ok. It does seem to work for me fairly often. I wouldn't call it random (although some might, and it might seem / be fairly random)--my goal is to find even a tiny subset of a command that works and then try building from there. (And, as you noted, the methodoloy is not aimed only at find, and may be particularly bad for find (I've had a hate / hate relationship with find ever since I started using Linux ;-) Do you have a better approach?
