James Youngman wrote:
>>What implementation of find has this -wholename predicate?
>
>See the NEWS file. It's specific to GNU find.
Ah. My fault for not upgrading to the latest release before asking
about a missing feature. Thanks.
Still think it would be useful to print a warning when '-nam
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 02:38:29PM +0100, Avis, Ed wrote:
> Still think it would be useful to print a warning when '-name foo/bar'
> is used, suggesting -wholename instead.
I agree:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/findutils/findutils/find/parser.c.diff?r1=1.60&r2=1.61
Regards,
James.
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 10:51:39AM +0100, Avis, Ed wrote:
> What implementation of find has this -wholename predicate?
See the NEWS file. It's specific to GNU find.
James.
___
Bug-findutils mailing list
Bug-findutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/ma
James Youngman wrote:
>$ ./find . -name quux/umsp
>./find: warning: Unix filenames usually don't contain slashes
>(though pathnames do). That means that '-name quux/umsp' will
>probably evaluate to false all the time on this system. You
>might find the '-wholename' test more useful, or perhap
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:20:26AM +0100, Avis, Ed wrote:
> % find . -name foo/bar
>
> Actual output: nothing
> Desired output: warning: don't be silly, Unix filenames can't contain
> a slash.
Good idea. I implemented something slightly different:-
$ ./find . -name quux/umsp
./find: warning: Un
% find . -name foo/bar
Actual output: nothing
Desired output: warning: don't be silly, Unix filenames can't contain
a slash.
Alternatively, it could list all files called foo which are inside a
directory called bar under the current directory (which is what I was
kind of hoping for).
--
Ed Avis
