[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT: Bash Scripting Question



On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 22:10 -0500, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 12:06 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> --snip--
> > I'm saying that "pass a list of file names to some external app"
> > should be given some other name besides "find".
> > 
> > "find" is a very broad word that means "search for".
> > 
> > Now is that "search for" a file (as ls also does), or "search for"
> > something inside a file?
> > 
> > But then, complaints that Unix utility names are cryptic is nothing
> > new.
> 
> I might be missing something here, but I really don't see much
> functional overlap between ls and find (at least in the way that I use
> them). If I want to _FIND_ a file that I know I have SOMEWHERE under my
> home (however many levels deep), and I know that the name contains the
> letters a, b, and c, I will do a 'find /home/username -iname "*abc*"'
> and it will find that file for me.

Or locate.

"LOCATE the file in /home/username that matches the re *abc*."

> If, on the other hand, I want to LIST a file (or series of files) in a
> directory that I already know (say my home directory) and I know that
> those files start with the characters AbC, I will do a
> 'ls /home/username/AbC*'.
> 
> Where's the overlap and conflicting naming here?

Those assumptions about what FIND and LIST mean are arbitrarily
narrow.

For example, "Use grep to FIND all files that match a given re."

I whole-heartily agree with Hal that the functionality of ls(1) 
and find(1) should be merged, and be given a new name.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and
complex--but Congress can."
Cullen Hightower

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: