Erik Quanstrom wrote: > On Mon Mar 9 23:30:22 EDT 2009, ano...@gmail.com wrote: >> that seems a little awkward. erik's suggestion is what i >> think i'd really like. rog's would be okay, although still >> somewhatawkward, were i on plan 9; since i'm not, i think >> i have russ's option. so with -x, say i had a tree: >> >> /dog >> /cat >> /fish/guppie >> /fish/clown >> /pig >> >> and i wanted /dog, /cat, and /fish/clown. would three >> includes be sufficent there, or do i need it include /fish and >> then exclude /fish/guppie, to get the heirarchy? >> >> i do wish more tools used proto. the format is so nice. > > oh, you already know what i'm going to suggest, so > just get to it! >
kenfs? ;) John
