On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 19:46, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >> In the context of the original post, the comparison was to perl regex.
> >
> > Perl searches for a regex in a string, rather than matching a pattern on
> > a string.
>
> I disagree, and I think this is the hub of the matter. Regex always
> ma
Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> However the notation used
>> with find is weaker in several ways (As I mentioned in my 1st post in
>> this thread) than what I referred to as POSIX.
>
> Your misunderstanding of a regex match does not constitute a weakness in
> find. :)
Yikes.
On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 17:12, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> Not exactly. There are several common sets of regex rules. The one
> in find is not as powerfull as what I called the `POSIX' set.
Find uses the POSIX regex functions in the C library, not some special,
weak code.
> > know that Perl provide
Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 14:16, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> I'm not really sure what constitutes a posix legal regex but I don't
>> think it includes trick riders like having to match a specific part
>> of a string, unless put into the regex itself with a
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 14:16, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> I'm not really sure what constitutes a posix legal regex but I don't
> think it includes trick riders like having to match a specific part
> of a string, unless put into the regex itself with anchors or the
> like.
A regex is a regex, but a r
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 07:26, Harry Putnam wrote:
> >>
> >> It is new within a year or so, I believe but if you look close you'll
> >> also notice it isn't posix regex
> >>
> >> The example given shows
Gordon Messmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 07:26, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>
>> It is new within a year or so, I believe but if you look close you'll
>> also notice it isn't posix regex
>>
>> The example given shows it.
>> `b.*r3
>>
>> Does not match
>> ./fubar3
>
> Su
On Fri, 2002-04-19 at 07:26, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> It is new within a year or so, I believe but if you look close you'll
> also notice it isn't posix regex
>
> The example given shows it.
> `b.*r3
>
> Does not match
> ./fubar3
Sure it's a POSIX regex. However, the man page points out t
Bill Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oops.
>
> I completely missed that one ... how long's that been there?
>
> I'm guessing it's probably always been there, like Kosh. I'm sooo
> embarrassed now :o)
It is new within a year or so, I believe but if you look close you'll
also notice it
On 18 Apr 2002, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 15:26, daniel wrote:
> > i'm a perlgeek
> > so i'm familiar with its style of regular expressions
> > but when i'm trying to use one of those regular expressions in a find
> > command,
> >
> > find /home/ -name "(.Apple(.*))|(Network
"daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i'm a perlgeek
> so i'm familiar with its style of regular expressions
> but when i'm trying to use one of those regular expressions in a find
> command,
> i'm not having much luck
> here's what i want to do:
>
>
> find /home/ -name "(.Apple(.*))|(Network Tr
On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 15:26, daniel wrote:
> i'm a perlgeek
> so i'm familiar with its style of regular expressions
> but when i'm trying to use one of those regular expressions in a find
> command,
>
> find /home/ -name "(.Apple(.*))|(Network Trash
> Folder)|(TheVolumeSettingsFolder)" -print0 |
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, daniel wrote:
> i'm a perlgeek
> so i'm familiar with its style of regular expressions
> but when i'm trying to use one of those regular expressions in a find
> command,
> i'm not having much luck
> here's what i want to do:
>
>
> find /home/ -name "(.Apple(.*))|(Network Tr
13 matches
Mail list logo
