Jim Meyering wrote: > Yes, it's possible, if that behavior is controlled by a new option, > but it's hard to justify adding new options to ls.
May I ask why such behavior would have to be "optional"? For many, many years (at least a decade IIRC) "ls" fleshed out the user and group name columns to 8 characters. Typically this resulted in there being several spaces worth of padding between the columns, which made listings quite readable -- it was very easy to tell the columns apart at a glance. Now the column widths are determined dynamically -- and that's a great step forward -- but it has come at a cost of readability, since there's often only a single space separating the columns. It seems especially tight when listing a file with a numeric uid/gid: -rw-r--r-- 1 123 456 5 Apr 10 18:15 test (Quick! What's the size of that file?) I guess I fail to see what the "downside" is here. The suggested change strikes me as a reasonable compromise between the old and the new behaviors. (And again, not that it counts for much, but BSD's "ls" already does the same thing.) Jordan Russell _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
