On 01/09/2016 04:41 PM, James Youngman wrote: > Let's re-open the discussion about what to call the "sane" alternative to > -size, and implement it this time.
I'm not so enthusiastic, i.e., only 20:80 for adding such a -filesize option. The question is: what functionality would it provide which could not be achieved with existing ones? ... and we'd have to say: well, none. Adding another option would only add complexity to the code (-size vs. -filesize must be handled, too). And from the user's point of view, I'd guess it'd be confusing too: "2 options for filtering by size? Huh? Which one should I take?". Finally it doesn't help to clarify the situation with the -size option - which is specified by POSIX and therefore also available in other implementations. I'd rather suggest to re-work the --help output to explain every single option rather than just mentioning them as today. The usage text via --help is the first thing a user tries to read when {s,}he's unsure. With the longer format, we'd have the chance to avoid confusion at the first place the user is looking for. And IMHO using a text based on that of the POSIX spec for the -size option would be the best I could think of. Tests: ... -regex PATTERN Match files by regular expression PATTERN -size N[bcwkMG] Match if the file size in bytes, divided by 512 and rounded up to the next integer, is N. Use suffix 'c' for a comparison with bytes -true Always true ... WDYT? Have a nice day, Berny