Hi Stephane,
We missed the point you raised about the example when we resolved this issue
during our 2023-11-20 conference call. Since those changes have already been
applied to Issue 8 draft 4 I will file a new bug to address this point in a
later draft.
Thank you for pointing that we missed this.
Sincerely,
Don
> On Dec 14, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The
> Open Group wrote:
>
> 2023-11-20 17:30:32 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The
> Open Group:
> [...]
>> On page 2920 line 97596 section find (-newer), change:The
>> primary shall evaluate as true if the modification time of the current file
>> is more recent than the modification time of the file named by the pathname
>> file.to:The primary shall evaluate as true
>> if the modification time of the current file is more recent than the
>> modification time of the file named by the pathname file. If
>> file names a symbolic link, the modification time used shall be that
>> of the file referenced by the symbolic link if either the -H or
>> -L is specified; if neither -H nor -L is specified, it
>> is unspecified whether the modification time is that of the symbolic link
>> itself or of the file referenced by the symbolic link. In either case, if
>> the referenced file does not exist, the modification time used shall be
>> that of the link itself. If file is a relative pathname, it shall be
>> resolved relative to the current working directory that was inherited by
>> find when it was invoked.
> [...]
>
> Thanks, looks good.
>
> What about the example:
>
>> - fix the example at line 97747 to use -H, and maybe add a
>> "provided both file1 and file2 are accessible".
>
> ?
>
> --
> Stephane
>
