[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Interaction between -o and the default-print

From: Andreas Metzler
Subject: Re: Interaction between -o and the default-print
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:53:49 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

On 2004-11-01 James Youngman <address@hidden> wrote:
> $ find . -ls -mindepth 3  >/dev/null
> find: warning: you have specified the -mindepth option after a non-option 
> argument -ls, but options are not positional (-mindepth affects tests 
> specified before it as well as those specified after it).  Please specify 
> options before other arguments.
> I do wonder though if this attempt to be helpful will simply be
> irritating.  However, there are a couple of defect reports that have
> been raised which would have been avoided if this error message had
> been implemented.   Some people do seem to assume that things like 

>  find . \( -name foo -print \) -o \( -mindepth 2 -type d -print \) 

> will work, and print out instances of "foo" which are in the current
> directory.

While both is true I currently tend to "a lot more irritating than

find is used in countless scripts including lots of cronjobs and I
suspect lots of them would trigger this warning (Resulting in
a useless mail for every cronjob). (And yes I've already found a
instance after a single day.)

How about a -debug and asking people to use it before submitting a
   cu and- just my 2c -reas
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]