On 2007-11-02 at 08:06 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> Especially when you have a PFY who loves zsh and uses it for scripting
> after you've told him not to.
Yeah, I said it's write-only. I support not using it for production
scripting, but then this is an environment which disavows Perl and has
On 02-Nov-2007, at 10:56, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
File::Find::Rule -- not File::Find.
This naming convention is made of hate and rotting wombat spleens.
On 02-Nov-2007, at 09:55, sabrina downard wrote:
(Not least because
I am used to various sorts of brain-damage, like in iterating over
strings with spaces in them in shell loops, and it confuses me to find
that someone actually fixed the brain-damage rather than working
around it like the rest of
On Nov 2, 2007 10:19 AM, Abigail wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:05:11AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > * Chris Devers [2007-11-02 04:55]:
> > > Anything beyond rudimentary find has always scared me into
> > > laziness.
> >
> > Would that every system I touch had Perl and the File::Find::Rule
Hi Abigail,
* Abigail [2007-11-02 10:30]:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:05:11AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > Would that every system I touch had Perl and the
> > File::Find::Rule module installed.
>
> File::Find confuses me.
File::Find::Rule -- not File::Find.
File::Find is a pain and a half.
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:35:57PM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> There's nothing crazy about it at all. It's not a flag, if it was a
> flag it would be a single character (this is a good decade and a hlaf
> before that crazy GNU getopt shit).
Even without that crazy GNU getopt shit -print co
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:56:49AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:03:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > > $ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
> Except that's a red herring, because if he had but `-exec rm \;`
> where he put his `-print0`, the exact same t
On 02/11/2007, sabrina downard wrote:
> > zsh is a whole new category of hate, as far as I'm concerned.
>
> zsh is the weirdest shell I've ever used. That hasn't stopped me from
> adopting it as my login shell, but it keeps giving me occasions to say
> "what the fuck? that shouldn't have worked."
> zsh is a whole new category of hate, as far as I'm concerned.
zsh is the weirdest shell I've ever used. That hasn't stopped me from
adopting it as my login shell, but it keeps giving me occasions to say
"what the fuck? that shouldn't have worked." Like the first time when
I did something like "
On 02-Nov-2007, at 04:57, Smylers wrote:
Peter da Silva writes:
There's nothing crazy about [-print] at all. It's not a flag, if it
was a flag it would be a single character
Then there's things like like -maxdepth.
The QNX man pages for find document where each option came from.
That's us
On 02-Nov-2007, at 04:35, Martin Ebourne wrote:
Was GNU really the first to make -print optional though? It's been
optional on most unixen for a long time,
E... no?
certainly HP-UX from nearly 20 years ago,
If so it was HP's own perversion.
SYS V,
Not up through SVR2.
BSD (not su
On 02-Nov-2007, at 00:39, Phil Pennock wrote:
zsh% rm **/*.txt
zsh is a whole new category of hate, as far as I'm concerned.
Especially when you have a PFY who loves zsh and uses it for
scripting after you've told him not to.
And then leaves.
Peter da Silva writes:
> There's nothing crazy about [-print] at all. It's not a flag, if it
> was a flag it would be a single character
Then there's things like like -maxdepth. FreeBSD find doesn't include
it in the list of 'options', instead categorizing it as a 'primary', but
it carries this
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 18:35 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
And then they should have realised that those crazy GNU guys would
make the final "-print" optional, so it looked even more like a flag.
Because it's not.
Yes it was at this point that I started to realize somethin
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:05:11AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Chris Devers [2007-11-02 04:55]:
> > Anything beyond rudimentary find has always scared me into
> > laziness.
>
> Would that every system I touch had Perl and the File::Find::Rule
> module installed. Given
>
> alias ffr='perl
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 18:35 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> And then they should have realised that those crazy GNU guys would
> make the final "-print" optional, so it looked even more like a flag.
> Because it's not.
Yes it was at this point that I started to realize something was wrong
with
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 20:20 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Martin Ebourne wrote:
> > One of the rules to save your bacon, just like you should always
> > 'select ... from ... where ...' before you 'delete from ... where ...',
> > 'find ... -print' before you 'find ... -exec rm \;' or xargs equiv
On 2007-11-01 at 23:50 -0400, Chris Devers wrote:
> $ cd ~/Movies/NOVA
> $ find . | grep '\.txt$' # just to skim the list & be sure...
> $ rm */*/*.txt
>
> Hm?
>
> Then repeat the `find . | grep ...` to verify you got them all.
>
> If there's some another level down, no problem:
>
* Chris Devers [2007-11-02 04:55]:
> Anything beyond rudimentary find has always scared me into
> laziness.
Would that every system I touch had Perl and the File::Find::Rule
module installed. Given
alias ffr='perl -MFile::Find::Rule'
Michael's original example would be
ffr -e'unlink f
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I want to delete a bunch of unnecessary text files in a pile of NOVA episodes
> I have archived. Ok, no problem...
Anything beyond rudimentary find has always scared me into laziness.
If the .txt files are all known to be at the same depth, why no
On 01-Nov-2007, at 22:27, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That you say that like it should be obvious is, in and of itself,
crazy.
When find was written, it was obvious. That it's become crazy is
hateful.
Or, maybe, 15 years later, we'd be using something better than find.
You have a C compile
On 01-Nov-2007, at 21:34, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
find . \( -name 'foo*' -o -name '*bar' \) -prune -o -exec rm {} \;
There's no nested quotes there. That's barely quoting heck.
It's when you find yourself faced with 'if("'"$A"'" = $0)' and you
need to put THAT inside `` and you're trying to
On 01-Nov-2007, at 19:56, Aaron Crane wrote:
.sh BUGS
Syntax should be reconciled with
.it if.
The way "if" and kin worked in v6 sucked dead hairy wombats, though.
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> Would it? Is {} the default arg somehow?
>
> find . -exec rm {} \; -name '*.txt'
> ^^
>
> would have given you at least loads of errors about the directories
> that cannot be removed with rm :)
Got those with xargs, too, which was when I realized something
Peter da Silva wrote:
> On 01-Nov-2007, at 18:03, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> $ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
>
> That's a mistake.
THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!
>> Whoopsie, everything's deleted. 10 gigs of fine public educational
>> video,
>> gone. Turns out putting -print0 fi
Martin Ebourne wrote:
> One of the rules to save your bacon, just like you should always
> 'select ... from ... where ...' before you 'delete from ... where ...',
> 'find ... -print' before you 'find ... -exec rm \;' or xargs equivalent.
No, you turn off autocommit, you maniac.
Which reminds me,
* Peter da Silva [2007-11-02 01:31]:
> On 01-Nov-2007, at 19:16, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>> So they should have done what sed and awk do and made
>> expression a string passed either as first parameter or as an
>> argument to the an -e switch.
>
> That leads to quoting hell, which find is trying to av
Peter da Silva writes:
> there's always been some people complaining about find being some
> kind of exception because it uses those crazy long options. It's
> not, it's consistent, it's just hateful.
Well, it's consistent with itself, sure, but hardly with the rest of
Unix of that vintage. I'm r
On 2007-11-01 at 19:24 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
> On 01-Nov-2007, at 19:16, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>> Well find will get on your case if you mix paths and predicates
>> anyway.
>
> Yes, they could have just had one token to say "that's the last file, the
> rest is an expression". That would also
On 01-Nov-2007, at 19:16, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Well find will get on your case if you mix paths and predicates
anyway.
Yes, they could have just had one token to say "that's the last file,
the rest is an expression". That would also have worked.
So they should have done what sed and awk do
* Peter da Silva [2007-11-02 00:40]:
> It's a term in an expression. The hateful thing isn't that it
> behaved that way, it's that they put a "-" in front of the
> terms in the expression instead of something else like "+" or
> "=" so you wouln't think it was some kind of long format
> option.
We
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:56:49AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Michael Jinks [2007-11-02 00:30]:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:03:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > Since I learned how to make -exec do my bidding, I think I can
> > count on one hand the number of times I've had to h
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 00:56:49 +0100, "A. Pagaltzis" wrote:
> * Michael Jinks [2007-11-02 00:30]:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:03:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > >
> > > $ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
> >
> > I hates xargs. It has its place I guess, but this ain't it,
* Michael Jinks [2007-11-02 00:30]:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:03:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> >
> > $ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
>
> I hates xargs. It has its place I guess, but this ain't it,
> and souping up GNU find to (try to, sometimes) feed nice path
> nam
On 01-Nov-2007, at 18:03, Michael G Schwern wrote:
$ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
That's a mistake.
Whoopsie, everything's deleted. 10 gigs of fine public educational
video,
gone. Turns out putting -print0 first instead of last causes some
sort of
crazy find switch
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 16:03 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Oh that's right, in Unix nobody would ever possibly put a space in a filename
> (a hate for later). So I need to separate things with a null byte, ok...
>
> $ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
>
> Whoopsie, everything's
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 04:03:20PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> $ find . -print0 -name '*.txt' | xargs -0 rm
I hates xargs. It has its place I guess, but this ain't it, and souping
up GNU find to (try to, sometimes) feed nice path names to xargs seems
only to have made GNU find that
I want to delete a bunch of unnecessary text files in a pile of NOVA episodes
I have archived. Ok, no problem...
$ cd ~/Movies/NOVA/
$ find . -name '*.txt' | xargs rm
rm: cannot remove `./NOVA': No such file or directory
rm: cannot remove `-': No such file or direc
38 matches
Mail list logo
