Pierre Fortin wrote:
...
> I would think this indicates that "find" is buggy since the "-o|-or|," does not
> seem to work as documented... comments...?
...
find(1) is a first-class bitch of a program. It consistently trips me
up with it's arcane syntax and unexpected behavior.
In this case, you are being bitten by the fact that find follows the
file globbing behavior of the shell (from 'info find'):
In the `find' tests that do shell pattern matching (`-name',
`-path', etc.), wildcards in the pattern do not match a `.' at the
beginning of a file name.
Your problem with '-or' is that there is an implied '-and' before
'-print', so that you are really doing 'a or b and c', which is
different than 'b or a and c' because 'and' has higher precedence. If
you use parens (or drop the '-print'), it works as you expect:
$ find . \( -iname '.test*' -o -iname 'test*' \) -print
./.test
./.test/test1
./.test/test1/test2
./.test/test1/test2/TEST2
./.test/test1/TEST1
./.test/.test1
./.test/.test1/.test2
./.test/.test1/.test2/.TEST2
./.test/.test1/.TEST1
As far as the original problem, I would suggest keeping the find part as
simple as possible and use grep to do the matching:
$ find . -type f | grep test
Or, more precisely:
$ find . -type f | grep 'read[^/]*$'
to limit the match to the filename component.
<Joe
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
