Some of these are wrong, as standard shell globs don't traverse directories. For instance the first example should be:

    ls **/*.sh

I think that would work in Bash just as well as using find.

But yeah, even in POSIX it feels redundant when we already have find, seq, grep and whatnot.

▲ js2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I thought I knew every nook and cranny of bash, but somehow never noticed the globstar option added in bash 4.0.

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/globstar-new-bash-globb...

https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html#Pattern-M...

▲ wongarsu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I frequently have cases where `ls **/*.png` fails because the argument list is too long. Just happened yesterday with an rm I wanted to run.

Find works, but the syntax is arcane. Not bad, but unlike any other common cli tool, which makes it more difficult to remember if you haven't needed it in a while

	▲	jimmaswell an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Find works, but the syntax is arcane. fd is a lifesaver: https://github.com/sharkdp/fd
	▲	Grimeton 32 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Newer finds have a -delete option. Dunno if that's standard or some GNU addition, but it's there.
	▲	giov4 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I agree and I usually ended-up combining find reliability with other commands to obtain what I needed without big issues or too much looping syntax effort. Regarding remembering the find syntax I think its being arcane is what it made for me more easy to remember :) I now have a unique brain area dedicated to remember only that.

▲ IsTom 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be pendantic

    ls -- **/*.sh

Otherwise it will fail if you've got a file named e.g. --help

▲

ahoef 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So, it's essentially argument injection?

I dislike these tools so much, because you need to know all these corner-cases and I don't.

	▲	IsTom an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, this happens broadly in shell with globbing. It's a bit ridiculous.

▲ westurner 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But `ls -print0` is not an option;

  set -x
  mkdir test; cd "$_"
  touch "test "$'\n'"12.txt"
  ls
  for name in `ls`; do echo "$name"; done
  find
  find . -exec echo {} \;
  find . -print0
  find . -print0 | xargs -n 1 -0 echo
  #
  find . -print0 | el -0 -v -x echo
  find . -print0 | el -0 -v -x echo "{0} #"
  find . -print0 | el -0 -v -x echo '"{0}" #'
  find . -print0 | el -0 -x sh -x -c 'echo "{0} #"'

Though, I just realized that this doesn't work yet either:

  find . -print0 | el -0 -x -- sh -c 'set -x: echo "{0} #"'

westurner/dotfiles/scripts/el: "edit lines" https://github.com/westurner/dotfiles/blob/master/scripts/el...

`el -v/--verbose` is useful because it prints each input; though, I might not have written `el` if I had been aware of `xargs -n/--max-args=1`