On 11/08/2013 01:06 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 11/07/2013 09:34 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> I don't see an issue there. > > Apart from inconsistency I suppose. > > You're right that option order matters with GNU ls currently. > It does not matter on FreeBSD at least, as there, -f does not > turn off -l no matter which order they occur. > > Comparing some other options that POSIX is more concrete about > in combination with -f, consider -S. POSIX says that: > "When -f is specified, any occurrences of the -r, -S, and -t options shall be > ignored" > Now GNU ls does put order significance on the -S option which you can > see by running `/bin/ls -flS`, and that does seem to contravene POSIX. > > But option order precedence issue is more general really. > Guideline 11 in > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html > states that order shouldn't matter, but we've backwards compat to > worry about. Also having later options override earlier ones > does allow one to for example alias a default set of ls options, > which one can later change as needed.
Thanks for the clarification. It was a bit hard to understand without a live BSD system or the actual commands including the output. Thanks & have a nice day, Berny
