[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Interaction between -o and the default-print
From: |
James Youngman |
Subject: |
Re: Interaction between -o and the default-print |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:24:24 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 12:53:49PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> 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.
>
> Hello,
> While both is true I currently tend to "a lot more irritating than
> useful".
>
> 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
> bugreport?
I agree with the idea, though I might call the option -warn/-nowarn,
with the default being -nowarn, unless stdin is a tty. Thoughts?