Subject: Re: Recursive grep (where is limfree defined?)
To: None <Chris_G_Demetriou@NIAGARA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU,>
From: Don Lewis <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/24/1996 14:48:11
On Jan 23,  8:31am, Chris_G_Demetriou@NIAGARA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU wrote:
} Subject: Re: Recursive grep (where is limfree defined?)
} > It is due to the way this particular find statment was written.  If I am not 
} > mistaken, it starts a new grep process for each file encountered.  A 
} > better method, using pipes and xargs was posted, but it goes to show how 
} > treacherous using find for what (IMHO) grep could and should do.
} if 'grep' should do FTS traversals, what is the argument that other
} 'text-processing' tools (cat, head, ed, vi, sed, yadda, yadda, yadda)
} _shouldn't_?

You left out compress and gzip ;-)

Also, to avoid user confusion all of the tools that do FTS traversals
should use the same control knobs.  The proposed grep patch fails this
since grep already has a -L flag.  The patch substitutes -S.

} The things that currently do operate recursively are (mostly? all?)
} file tree management tools.  If you're going to start doing text
} processing tools, why not do all of them?  (the answer: because doing
} _any_ of them is unnecessary, non-standard, and "unhistorical.")
} ... and, it doesn't really solve the problem...  If you're searching a
} file tree, do you want to blindly grep all files?  ("i've got an emacs
} for you...")
} cgd
}-- End of excerpt from Chris_G_Demetriou@NIAGARA.NECTAR.CS.CMU.EDU