On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:19:41PM +0001, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:55:08AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 07:40, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:03:01AM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > > >> Hi Ted, > > >> > > >> Ted Unangst wrote on Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 05:41:41PM -0500: > > >> > > >> > Here's a revised diff against current. It just notes that the > > >> > extension spellings are such. > > >> > > >> I'm OK with that, discouraging gratuitiously non-standard syntax > > >> makes a lot of sense. > > >> > > > > > > when find(1) was imported into openbsd (or when openbsd itself was > > > imported), it came with the syntax "-and" and "-or". that was in > > > 1995, some 19 years ago. beyond that, well you'd be much better > > > qualified to tell me the history of it. > > > > > > so how have you gone from that to "gratuitiously non-standard syntax"? > > > if it has existed for 19 years (and before that), in this context it is > > > completely standard syntax. > > > > I'll note that the -a and -o syntax was also supported since the > > initial import. It merely wasn't documented. All we're doing here is > > fixing a bug. > > > > the bug is fixed. we're now really discussing whether the man page for > find(1) should sideline -and and -or in favour of -a and -o. >
just for the record, free/net/dragon do not document -a and -o, so maybe we can pass diffs upstream after deciding what we're doing. freebsd does mention that -o and -a were implemented as posix compliances, but only in STANDARDS. i've no idea really if there is a reference linux page, but the first one i found online documents both notations, more or less in the way i have (though they've listed them as separate items, not as one). jmc
