Re: zargs: unexpected, non-xargs behaviour

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 7,  9:41am, Stephen Blott wrote:
}
} Am I missing something?

In the comments in the zargs function file:

# * POSIX -L and -n are mutually exclusive and effectively synonymous;
#   zargs accepts both and considers -n to be a limit on the total number
#   of arguments per command line, that is, including the initial-args.
#   Thus the following fails with "argument list too long":
#     zargs -n 3 -- echo Here are four words
#   The smallest limit implied by the combination of -L and -n is used.