Follow-up Comment #2, bug #18554 (project findutils):
Yeah well... in the example, {} and + and next to each other. But I don't
think we can count on the example, as it doesn't even mention that {} can be
part of a longer argument, e.g. "exec utility_name [argument ...] foo{}bar
+". So it is just an example, not a complete reference of all the valid
features.
The description is a little bit unclear to me. "plus sign that follows {}" --
I guess that in "{} foo bar +" the + sign follows {}, whereas for example in
"+ foo {}" it doesn't, it precedes (this is I guess what the last sentence of
your quote could have referred to, which also means that the command line
parsing algorithm described in my original post is wrong, a standalone + sign
occuring before the first {} shouldn't be treated as special).
Does the English verb "follow" implies that it's the _immediate_ successor? I
don't think so, but I'm not so good in English to feel such nuances.
I extremely hate when slowly evolving standards set back innovation. And I
also hate when standards use ambiguous wording. Anyway, there are far too
many situations where current GNU utilities override or extend POSIX. I'm not
thinking in POSIX, I'm thinking how useful or powerful a utility is. IMHO this
feature wouldn't hurt anyone, but would make "find" more powerful.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?18554>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
_______________________________________________
Bug-findutils mailing list
Bug-findutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils
