Ian Dall wrote: >Padraig Brady writes: > > Ian Dall wrote: > > > > >I needed to sort by version number so that 1.2.12 > 1.2.3 > > > > > >[...] > > > > > >2005-11-02 Ian Dall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > * coreutils.texi (sort invocation): Document new option > > > --version-sort (-v). > > > > Thanks. > > I agree that this would be very useful. > > Please compare to the existing functionality in ls though. > > I prefer the more general mechanism of a --sort= parameter > > as I can see many other possible methods (like random for e.g.). > > > > For reference here is what ls does: > > > > $ ls -1 > > file1-1.23.tar.gz > > file1-1.4.tar.gz > > file2-1.4-12.tar.gz > > file2-1.4-1.tar.gz > > file2-1.4-2.tar.gz > > file2-1.4.tar.gz > > > > $ ls -1 --sort=version > > file1-1.4.tar.gz > > file1-1.23.tar.gz > > file2-1.4-1.tar.gz > > file2-1.4-2.tar.gz > > file2-1.4-12.tar.gz > > file2-1.4.tar.gz > >This is just a question about the syntax for the option right? The >sort behaviour is exactly the same because they use the same >comparison function. > >
yes >I can see why it would be good to be consistant with the option syntax >between ls and sort, on the other hand, sort is an auxillary feature >of ls, but the prime feature of sort. > fair enough. I was thinking of extensibility and ease of reference for the --sort option. > Also, in sort, each sort method >needs a single character "short" option so it can be used as a per >field flag. > > You run out of these quickly. Also -v is usually used for verbose in other utils. >There is no real reason why one can't have a mixture --sort=version is >the long option and -k n,mv for the field option and either -v for the >short global option or disallow the short global option. To be >consistent though really the other long sort options should be >--sort=numeric --sort=month etc., but changing that is going to break >scripts which use the existing long options. > > Yes we will need to keep the existing options I'm afraid. >I can see a tension between stability and consistency within sort and >across utilites. I am happy to use the --sort=version form, but want to know: > >1. Is this just for new sort options? > > no >2. If not, should all the various --sort=xxx options be added > > yes >3. If so, are the old long options to be removed, depeciated or kept > indefinitely > > Document existing options as deprecated >4. Should there be a global short option and should it be "-v"? > > > That's a bit tricky. I would say no (and also deprecate other global short options) >5. If not, is it OK to use 'v' as a flag for version sorting of a > field? > > Yes. thanks for the lucid email. Pádraig. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
