xargs: Why does order of command line switches matter?
Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) [E]
BBuchbinder@niaid.nih.gov
Wed Apr 25 13:40:00 GMT 2012
On 4/25/2012 6:29 AM, Ronald Fischer wrote:
>Eliot Moss sent the following at Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:05 AM
>
>> Why do I get a different output in the following two invocations of
>> xargs? I had expected that the relative order of the command line
>> switches (-I, -L) would not matter:
>>
>> $ ls | xargs -I DIR -L 1 echo DIR
>> DIR wontprint.txt
>> DIR x.cmd
>> DIR x.pl
>> DIR x.sh
>> $ ls | xargs -L 1 -I DIR echo DIR
>> wontprint.txt
>> x.cmd
>> x.pl
>> x.sh
>
>I agree that that is what happens, and that it does seem strange
>and buggy. I note, though, that -I *implies* -L 1, so the -L 1 is
>unnecessary. Perhaps the explicit mention of -L 1 "kills" the -I flag in
>xarg's command line processing. My guess is that this behavior is passed
>on from the upstream implementation and is not specific to cygwin, which
>means that the appeal for a change would probably need to be lodged
>elsewhere ...
From man xargs:
BUGS
The -L option is incompatible with the -I option, but perhaps should
not be.
- Barry
Disclaimer: Statements made herein are not made on behalf of NIAID.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
More information about the Cygwin
mailing list