Truls Becken writes:
> It seems that -prune in POSIX find is almost completely useless!
No it's not, it just does what it says:
-prune True; if the file is a directory, do not descend into it.
(And yes, it's a shame -min/maxdepth aren't in POSIX; they are highly
useful.)
--
Christ
death is suckless, so please shut up
* is not suckless
FTFY
POSIX is not suckless
It seems that -prune in POSIX find is almost completely useless!
"find . -prune" only returns "."
"find * -prune" works, but has argument list length issues.
"find . -mindepth 1 -prune" is fine, but not POSIX.
-Truls
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:36:07 -, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:43:55 -, Christian Neukirchen
wrote:
Connor Lane Smith writes:
On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:43:55 -, Christian Neukirchen
wrote:
Connor Lane Smith writes:
On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
POSIX compatibility.
All supported except for -maxde
On 29 November 2011 19:09, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> You're ok with using a util you built, but not a util someone else built?
> (I'm not defending GNU find, I'm just saying, stest is no more POSIX :) )
dmenu isn't defined by POSIX either; the difference is that stest is
in the dmenu repo. I'm
Somebody claiming to be Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Connor Lane Smith writes:
On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
POSIX compatibility.
You're ok with using a util you built, but not a
Troels Henriksen writes:
> Christian Neukirchen writes:
>
>> Connor Lane Smith writes:
>>
>>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>>> wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>>
>>> POSIX compatibility.
>>
>> All s
Hadrian Węgrzynowski writes:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:43:55 +0100
> Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>
>>Connor Lane Smith writes:
>>
>>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>>> wrote:
Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:43:55 +0100
Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>Connor Lane Smith writes:
>
>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>> wrote:
>>> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>>>
>>> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>
>> POSIX compatibility.
>
>All supported e
On 28 November 2011 14:43, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> All supported except for -maxdepth, but you can use:
>
> find -L . -type d \! -name . -prune -o -type f -perm -111 -print
I've seen things like this before. All it does is prove how much find
needs replacing. I'm considering using stest (ls
Christian Neukirchen writes:
> Connor Lane Smith writes:
>
>> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
>> wrote:
>>> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>>>
>>> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>>
>> POSIX compatibility.
>
> All supported except for -maxdepth, but you ca
Connor Lane Smith writes:
> On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen
> wrote:
>> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>>
>> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
>
> POSIX compatibility.
All supported except for -maxdepth, but you can use:
find -L . -type d \! -name . -prune
On 28 November 2011 13:35, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> Any reason we don't replace lsx with this?
>
> find -L . -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm -111
POSIX compatibility.
cls
Connor Lane Smith writes:
> On 27 November 2011 23:13, Roger wrote:
>> Very well. I'm considering renaming lsx to dmenu_lsx and it looks like lsx's
>> only occurance is within /usr/bin/dmenu_run? Or is the name change going to
>> break anything else?
>
> Correct, it only appears in dmenu_run.
17 matches
Mail list logo
