Ian Jackson wrote: > I don't have a particular opinion about this, but since at the moment > anything containing regexp metacharacters except `.' (which includes > all strings that have a different meaning as globs than as literal > strings) is mishandled, you certainly have the option of changing the > documentation now to specify a more sophisticated kind of matching, > and then to implement that. I mean that doing so shouldn't be a > compatibility problem.
Right. However, -X needs to be consistent accross all commands and is
implemented in a variety of ways besides using find which would all need
to be changed if anything more powerful than substring matches were
used.
All more complicated globs can be replaced with a set of more than one
-X, in most cases probably not an excessive number, so the added power
does not feel worth it to me.
> (I can't seem to find -wholename in the info docs for find on this
> more-or-less-sarge system. Is this a new name for -path ?)
-wholename pattern
File name matches shell pattern pattern. The metacharacters do
not treat ‘/’ or ‘.’ specially; so, for example,
find . -wholename ’./sr*sc’
will print an entry for a directory called ’./src/misc’ (if one
exists). To ignore a whole directory tree, use -prune rather
than checking every file in the tree. For example, to skip the
directory ‘src/emacs’ and all files and directories under it,
and print the names of the other files found, do something like
this:
find . -wholename ’./src/emacs’ -prune -o -print
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
