4 ms·

`find` is weird anyway. The stuff after the arguments aren't really flags, they're a tiny filter language, with significant ordering and operator precedence and

`find` is weird anyway. The stuff after the arguments aren't really flags, they're a tiny filter language, with significant ordering and operator precedence and all that stuff. Using "normal" option syntax wouldn't make a lot of sense for it either.

chubot 6y ago
Yes exactly, find is like test a.k.a [. test -f foo -a -f bar -o -z foo can be read isfile('foo') && isfile('bar') || emptystring('foo') Likewise find . -name '*.py' -a -executable -o -printf '%P\n' can be read (F.name matches '*.py') && (F is executable) || print('%P\n', F) where F is the current node in the file system traversal. They both respect -o as OR, ! as NOT, and ( ) for precedence, which you have to quote as \( and \). A couple years ago, someone helped me implement a better "find" without this wonky syntax for https://www.oilshell.org/ https://www.oilshell.org/ . But it isn't done and needs some love. If anyone wants to help, feel free to join Zulip :) I do think that "find" is more like a language than a command line tool. It's pretty powerful, e.g. I just used it to sort through 20 years of haphazard personal backups.
- chubot 6y ago
  Related: Problems With the test Builtin: What Does -a Mean? http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/08/31.html http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/08/31.html
  - ainar-g 6y ago
    Thanks for the article! How did I not see this before? Didn't know that POSIX has obsoleted -a and -o either. I guess I have some shell scripts to rewrite, heh.
- ben0x539 6y ago
  I feel like `jq` does the "more like a language" thing better than `find`, but possibly its just a product of its time.
  - chubot 6y ago
    Well the thing find and test have in common is that they lack a lexer! They abuse the argv array for tokens instead. I might call it the "I'm too lazy to write a lexer" pattern :) jq has a lexer and hence a "real" syntax, but so does awk, which is maybe 30 years older. But yes jq is a surprisingly big and rich language, maybe bigger than awk: https://stedolan.github.io/jq/manual/ https://stedolan.github.io/jq/manual/

chubot 6y ago

Yes exactly, find is like test a.k.a [. test -f foo -a -f bar -o -z foo can be read isfile('foo') && isfile('bar') || emptystring('foo') Likewise find . -name '*.py' -a -executable -o -printf '%P\n' can be read (F.name matches '*.py') && (F is executable) || print('%P\n', F) where F is the current node in the file system traversal. They both respect -o as OR, ! as NOT, and ( ) for precedence, which you have to quote as \( and \). A couple years ago, someone helped me implement a better "find" without this wonky syntax for https://www.oilshell.org/ https://www.oilshell.org/ . But it isn't done and needs some love. If anyone wants to help, feel free to join Zulip :) I do think that "find" is more like a language than a command line tool. It's pretty powerful, e.g. I just used it to sort through 20 years of haphazard personal backups.

chubot 6y ago
Related: Problems With the test Builtin: What Does -a Mean? http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/08/31.html http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2017/08/31.html
- ainar-g 6y ago
  Thanks for the article! How did I not see this before? Didn't know that POSIX has obsoleted -a and -o either. I guess I have some shell scripts to rewrite, heh.
ben0x539 6y ago
I feel like `jq` does the "more like a language" thing better than `find`, but possibly its just a product of its time.
- chubot 6y ago
  Well the thing find and test have in common is that they lack a lexer! They abuse the argv array for tokens instead. I might call it the "I'm too lazy to write a lexer" pattern :) jq has a lexer and hence a "real" syntax, but so does awk, which is maybe 30 years older. But yes jq is a surprisingly big and rich language, maybe bigger than awk: https://stedolan.github.io/jq/manual/ https://stedolan.github.io/jq/manual/