Follow-up Comment #2, bug #62227 (project findutils):
[comment #1 comment #1:]
> I personally like to get such a warning, as one should try to use
-name/-iname
> with patterns for basenames only, and I think that the use case 'find /
-prune -name /'
> is quite exotic (and I would never have tried it myself TBH), so I'm
wondering if it's
> worth bothering to improve the warning diagnostic as shown above.
I agree that it makes sense to warn for a name that cannot ever be a basename,
but that means no warning should be issued for -name /, as / is a valid
basename.
For the record, -name / and -wholename / do not match in exactly the same
cases, because the basename of the root directory is / regardless of how it is
spelt:
$ find /// -prune -name /
find: warning: ‘-name’ matches against basenames only, but the given
pattern contains a directory separator (‘/’), thus the expression will
evaluate to false all the time. Did you mean ‘-wholename’?
///
$ find /// -prune -wholename /
find: warning: -wholename / will not match anything because it ends with /.
(That is another incorrect warning, -wholename / certainly can match despite
ending in /, but that is not part of this bug report.)
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62227>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
