On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 12:21:08PM +1100, raf <g...@raf.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 07:55:33PM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer > <cales...@scientia.org> wrote: > > > Hey. > > > > On Fri, 2024-12-13 at 23:05 +0100, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > > > I never saw a practical example why it would be dangerous. > > > > [...] > > > > > Second, my main point, is that I believe that there is confusion > > > about what -0, --null stands for. > > > The usage output clarifies: > > > > > > -0, --null items are separated by a null, not > > > whitespace; > > > disables quote and backslash > > > processing and > > > logical EOF processing > > > > > > The crucial word is "separate" which means it is something in between > > > 2 entries: > > > entry1 <separator> entry2 > > > It is and was never a "terminator", i.e., something acknowledging > > > that the previous > > > entry is committed. > > > entry1 <terminator> > > That might be what the "usage output" says, but it is not what find(1) > does. It is treating NUL as a terminator in the sense that the last > byte output with -print0 is a NUL. But that's find, not xargs. > > And my copy of the GNU xargs [(GNU findutils) 4.10.0] manual entry > says otherwise: > > -0, --null > Input items are terminated by a null character instead of by > whitespace... > > So the "usage output" disagrees with the manual entry. > It's probably the usage output that is wrong since the > manual entries for find and xargs agree with each other. > > cheers, > raf
Sorry, I just saw that this has already been mentioned.
