On 2018-03-20 11:34, Peter Sj??berg wrote:
> On 2018-03-16 11:39 AM, Brett Delmage wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, J C Nash wrote:
> >
> >> This may introduce a tangent, but I find the limit is often not the
> >> coded one but issues related to
> >> - getting 250 characters into the line and not
On 2018-03-16 09:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> course i taught recently had a section on "xargs", emphasizing its
> value(?) in being able to run a command in bite-size pieces but, these
> days, is that really that much of an issue?
>
> IIRC (and i might not), the historical limiting
On 2018-03-16 11:39 AM, Brett Delmage wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, J C Nash wrote:
>
>> This may introduce a tangent, but I find the limit is often not the
>> coded one but issues related to
>> - getting 250 characters into the line and not remembering whether the
>> parameter should be X or x
All I know is that I have hit the arg list too long error. That was
redhat-6.x so maybe it was old.
I think it is worth mentioning the solution if they ever run into that problem.
On March 16, 2018 11:04:37 AM "Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, James
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, J C Nash wrote:
This may introduce a tangent, but I find the limit is often not the
coded one but issues related to
- getting 250 characters into the line and not remembering whether the
parameter should be X or x and what the difference is.
Indeed.
For those who may
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
> i'm fairly sure i can conclude that a command can be at least 3882671
> characters long, can i not?
It depends on the shell, I'd think.
Regards,
Dianne.
___
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 16/03/18 Robert P. J. Day said:
>
> > again, as i mentioned, i do understand the value of xargs
> > because of the plethora of useful "tricks" like the above, but
> > those features aside, the basic question is still, does xargs
> > still have
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, James wrote:
> > It is necessary for running a command on all files matching a
> > pattern.
>
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 11:04:30AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i'm pretty sure that's not true.
>
> […]
>
> $ echo /* | wc -c
> 119
> $ echo /*/* | wc -c
> 159988
>
On 16/03/18 Robert P. J. Day said:
> again, as i mentioned, i do understand the value of xargs because of
> the plethora of useful "tricks" like the above, but those features
> aside, the basic question is still, does xargs still have value
> *solely* for its ability to run commands in
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, James wrote:
> It is necessary for running a command on all files matching a
> pattern.
i'm pretty sure that's not true.
> Wildcarding substitutes the full file names of each matching result
> of the wildcard on the command line. Thousands of matching
> names/paths can
It is necessary for running a command on all files matching a pattern.
Wildcarding substitutes the full file names of each matching result of the
wildcard on the command line. Thousands of matching names/paths can easily
blow up the buffer.
I think it works that way. :-)
On March 16, 2018
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Shawn H Corey wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:59:53 -0400
> "Michael P. Soulier" wrote:
>
> > On 16/03/18 Robert P. J. Day said:
> >
> > > course i taught recently had a section on "xargs", emphasizing
> > > its value(?) in being able to run a
On 2018-03-16 10:26 AM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
git ls-files -z | xargs -0 grep 'function_name'
The -z separates the names with a ASCII NUL and the -0 (minus zero)
allows xarg to read them correctly. This is useful if the files have
spaces in their names.
Such files are not permitted to exist in
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:59:53 -0400
"Michael P. Soulier" wrote:
> On 16/03/18 Robert P. J. Day said:
>
> > course i taught recently had a section on "xargs", emphasizing its
> > value(?) in being able to run a command in bite-size pieces but,
> > these days, is that
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 09:27:21AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> course i taught recently had a section on "xargs", emphasizing its
> value(?) in being able to run a command in bite-size pieces but, these
> days, is that really that much of an issue?
If it was a year ago when I tried to glob
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 09:27:21 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" wrote:
> course i taught recently had a section on "xargs", emphasizing its
> value(?) in being able to run a command in bite-size pieces but, these
> days, is that really that much of an issue?
Yes.
> $
On 16/03/18 Robert P. J. Day said:
> course i taught recently had a section on "xargs", emphasizing its
> value(?) in being able to run a command in bite-size pieces but, these
> days, is that really that much of an issue?
My main use for it.
git ls-files | xargs grep 'function_name'
This may introduce a tangent, but I find the limit is often not the
coded one but issues related to
- long lines wrapping round and becoming difficult to read
- inevitable fumble fingers
- getting 250 characters into the line and not remembering whether the
parameter should be X or x and
18 matches
Mail list logo