Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ls(1) options affecting -l long format Message-ID: <49041.935400960@axl.noc.iafrica.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908230052080.28254-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote: > The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking > for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be > using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n > where you'd otherwise use ls -l. That's good enough for me. :-) If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l. I'm not to phased with backward compatibility on this one, since I think it's always been understood that the output of ls isn't really intended for scripts (that's what find and test are for). The OpenGroup spec actually makes a point of that in its manpage. Thanks for your input. Later, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49041.935400960>