ralda at gmx.de
Thu May 12 20:31:56 UTC 2011
> I'm not sure how much it would increase the size of BB, ...
I can't tell that either, without looking for details of implementation.
> but I wouldn't think much since the 'ls' command already processes
> regex's. Something like this in bash/perl would take a few lines at best
In bash/perl ... you can't compare C code increasing only based on
simplicity of functionality in script languages like bash/perl ... I
expect the increasing of code size not to be so minimalistic ... that
is, we need to ask if required.
> - although I'm not a C or C++ programmer, ...
... and that's the reason why.
> I just thought it would be a nice addition to make for more complex
> searches without relying on another binary. :)
Another binary? ... find is an applet of busybox, and even with the
restricted version of Busybox you get a massive selection of
functionality, especially for searches (most likely cases where you use
"ls -1") ... without another binary, as it is already part of Busybox
(all those applets share the same code and usually get not duplicated
... if a need for extension of search selection arises, it would
probably be wise to extend the functionality of find. (IMHO)
Tip: Call Busybox without arguments. The list of applets shown is the
list of commands you can use in your scripts without fear of massive
memory wasting. In most cases it won't increase your memory requirements
either, using those applets (except daemons).
More information about the busybox