Hi Greg, On Sun, Sep 07, 2025 at 08:59:52AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Sep 07, 2025 at 16:45:19 +1000, Duncan Roe via Bug reports for the > GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote: > > `ls -1 [0-5]*` should produce the same output as `ls -1` but instead:- > > > > | $ ls -1 [0-5]* > > | 0.txt > > | ⁰.txt > > | ₀.txt > > | 1.txt > > | ₁.txt > > | 2.txt > > | ₂.txt > > | 3.txt > > | ₃.txt > > | 4.txt > > | ⁴.txt > > | ₄.txt > > > > superscripts ¹, ² & ³ are missing. > > The ordering of characters within your locale is controlled by the > authors of your locale (I'm guessing you're on GNU/Linux, so it would > be the GNU libc maintainers in your case). > > > GNU bash, version 5.3.3(1)-release[a8a1c2fa] (x86_64-slackware-linux-gnu) > > (Yeah, Slackware uses glibc as far as I know.) > > If you believe there's a bug in the locale, you'll have to take it up > with the GNU libc maintainers. > There is nothing wrong with the locale.
Plain `ls -1` *does* show ¹.txt, ².txt & ³.txt. Things *only* go wrong when bash expands the glob pattern "[0-5]*". Please re-read my original post with more care, Cheers ... Duncan.
