Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!pasteur!buddy.Berkeley.EDU!deboor
From: deboor@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Adam R de Boor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Look!  An xargs!!
Message-ID: <16837@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 5 Sep 89 04:44:32 GMT
References: <666@lakart.UUCP> <1641@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <7774@cbmvax.UUCP> <4026@buengc.BU.EDU> <1122@virtech.UUCP> <16816@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <10933@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: deboor@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Adam R de Boor)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 10


> The first solution was actually better, because it didn't bump into
> the exec args limit that is the main reason for xargs's existence.

I beg to differ: the first solution was worse than using the -exec arg
to find since it still executed the command for each found file but
had the overhead of the shell and pipe and while loop to contend with
besides. It also didn't handle args with spaces in them :)

a