From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Jun 18 22:40:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA07713 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:40:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (we-refuse-to-spy-on-our-users@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu [128.52.46.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA07705 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.8.5/8.6.12GNU) id BAA07196; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:40:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 01:40:07 -0400 Message-Id: <199706190540.BAA07196@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au CC: devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199706190501.OAA25428@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> (message from Michael Smith on Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:31:28 +0930 (CST)) Subject: Re: OS/2 users going to FreeBSD? :-) From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> OTOH, I generally prefer GNU find, since I can do something like >> `find -name foobar' and GNU find will do the equivalent of >> `find . -name foobar -print'. > That kinda breaks the argument syntax for find; everything before the > path is an option, everything afterwards is the expression. If you > add the '.', you get the same behaviour as the BSD find. Doesn't break it, it augments it in a backward-compatible fashion. Just because it means a complete rewrite if you were to try to write an FSM for reading it, doesn't mean it breaks it. Happy hacking, joelh -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the Free Software Foundation's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped