[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why can't I use xargs emacs?
From: |
Andreas Röhler |
Subject: |
Re: Why can't I use xargs emacs? |
Date: |
Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:08:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) |
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2010-02-03, Thierry Volpiatto wrote:
>
>> Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>
>>> Nothing, thanks! What's the difference between these two?
>>>
>>> emacs -nw `find . -name '*.txt'`
>>> emacs -nw $(find . -name '*.txt')
>> Nothing that's the same, i prefer $() than backquote but that just a
>> choice.
>>
>> Though bash was speaking at one time to remove backquote construction or
>> make it obsoléte in future versions.
>>
>> Don't know what they did finally.
>
> Well, I know backquotes still work because I use them in bash scripts
> a lot. As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, however, $(...) is a
> lot easier to nest.
>
Here is, what man bash says:
When the old-style backquote form of substitution is used,
backslash retains its literal meaning except when followed
by $, `, or \. The first backquote not preceded by a
backslash terminates the command substitution. When using
the $(command) form, all characters between the parentheses
make up the command; none are treated specially.
Command substitutions may be nested. To nest when using the
backquoted form, escape the inner backquotes with
backslashes.
- Re: Why can't I use xargs emacs?, (continued)
Re: Why can't I use xargs emacs?, Bit Twister, 2010/02/03
Re: Why can't I use xargs emacs?, hymie!, 2010/02/04
Re: Why can't I use xargs emacs?, David Combs, 2010/02/10