I do use xargs -0 almost habitually. That handles quoting issues and space issues, but:
xargs -0 fails when I want to pipe the result of xargs through a filter on the way to another xargs. Meanwhile, tr fails when I do not know the relevant set of unused characters (when just looking for them takes a long time and a specialized routine). Meanwhile, I am trying to understand what would fail if we had an option similar to -0 where xargs would split on (always and only) newlines rather than newlines plus other stuff. And, yes, I have been able to survive without this - but I still am wanting to understand the issue. Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Allan Streib <astr...@indiana.edu> wrote: > Raul Miller <rauldmil...@gmail.com> writes: > >> The problem here is that you currently can't get xargs to use newline >> as a separator without also getting spaces as a separator. This >> creates a variety of problems. > > I see. I've always used -0 in this case, can't recall any times where > this didn't solve the problem. You use case sounds unusual. Without > knowing the details, I'd suggest using additional filters e.g. maybe > tr(1), before/after xargs. > > Allan
