On 2017-06-18 11:32, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 18/06/17 03:51, Boruch Baum wrote: > > When I visually scan 'ls -lh' output, I find it difficult to notice > > every instance of the convenience presentation of 'k' and 'm'. Could > > you consider making them more visible, either through colorization of the > > letter, > > bold face of the letter, indentation, or marking? > > > > By indentation, I mean comething like: > > > > 111 > > 4M > > 11 > > > > By marking, I mean something like: > > > > 111 > > 4M<- > > 11 > > This wouldn't be core functionality so if we were to do that > it would be better in numfmt I think. For example you can get ls -lh > functionality now with numfmt like: > > \ls -l | numfmt --header --field=5 --to=si > > Looking at my numfmt TODO here I see this pertinent item: > > Have numfmt --format='%f ' put a space between number and auto units
Thanks for the quick reply. 1] For the `numfmt' functionality, let me suggest that your TODO item alter the implementation. 1.1] Using spaces for purposes other than for delimiting in `numfmt' is bound to mess up scripts. How about using an underscore instead of a space? 1.2] My guess is that people would want / expect "post number" text, including whitespace, to appear exactly as they write it. For example they might actually want a space in their format string exactly where you want to use it for your option (eg. `--format='%f €' ). Even if you reject the idea in par. 1.1, maybe use. `--format='%_f' to indicate placement of the space (or my preference, the underscore). 2] By way of persisting about an enhancement to `ls' functionality: 2.1] The current `h' doesn't note the units of small-sized files as `bytes', so let it do so, but instead of marking those numbers with a `B', use a space (a kind of "silent" `b', like in "lamb"). The result would align all numbers in the column, and it would be easier to note the `K', `M', etc. markers. This suggestion produces the same result as indentation, but is just a tweak to the already existing `h' for small values. 2.2] Does LS_COLORS operate only on the final field? Is there a possible user hack to have LS_COLORS operate on the size field? Kind regards, -- hkp://keys.gnupg.net CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1 7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0
