Re: PATCH: Re: Files modified after a given date

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 25,  4:20pm, Sven Wischnowsky wrote:
} Subject: PATCH: Re: Files modified after a given date
}
} 
} Zefram wrote:
} > That's one of the many things I never got round to.  I was going to
} > have patterns like "*(F:func:)" call the shell function "func" with the
} > name of each file which otherwise matches the glob pattern
} 
} [...] it also allows one to give additional arguments as in
} `*(F:func::arg1::arg2:)' and so on -- these are available as `$2'
} etc. in the function. And finally it allows the function to say *what* 
} should be included by setting the `reply' or `REPLY' parameter to a
} string or array (`REPLY' is only tested for a string value).
} 
} (Maybe this is going a bit too far?)

I don't have a problem with using reply/REPLY, but I think supplying
additional arguments inside the glob qualifier is a bit excessive (and also
accounts for most of the size of this patch, no?).

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com