On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:10 AM Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 8:22 PM Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote: > > On 09/04/2021 23:51, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > > On 09/04/2021 13:02, Carl Edquist wrote: > > >> Dear Coreutils Maintainers, > > >> > > >> I'd like to introduce my favorite 'ls' option, '-W', which I have been > > >> enjoying using regularly over the last few years. > > >> > > >> The concept is just to sort filenames by their printed widths. > > >> > > >> > > >> (If this sounds odd, I invite you hear it out, try and see for yourself!) > > >> > > >> > > >> I am including a patch with my implementation and accompanying tests - as > > >> well as some sample output. And I'll happily field any requests for > > >> improvements. > > > > > > I quite like this. It seems useful. > > > Also doing outside of ls is quite awkward, > > > especially considering multi column output. > > > > > > I would avoid the -W short option, as that would clash with ls from > > > FreeBSD for example. > > > It's probably best to not provide a short option for this at all. > > > > Playing around with this a bit more, > > I really like how much more concise it makes output in general. > > > > I've attached two patches which I'll apply tomorrow at some stage. > > > > The first adjusts your patch to: > > Remove -W short option. > > Fix crash on systems with statx(). > > s/filename/file name/. > > Expand in texinfo that --sort=width is most useful with -C (the default) > > > > The second is a performance improvement, > > as we're now calling quote_name_width a lot more. > > Nice. I like this new option, too! Who would have thought :-) > > Two minor stylistic suggestions: > > move this declaration of "i" down into the loop where it's used, to > save two lines: > > +static void > +update_current_files_cache (void) > +{ > + size_t i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < cwd_n_used; i++) > > And please use "char const *" (not const char *) in the added code of > ls.c. Admittedly this is a really small nit, especially since the > existing code in that file is not yet self-consistent. But at least > the preferred spelling outnumbers the others by about 3 to 1.
Oops. I see that you've pushed already. I'll adjust if you don't beat me to it again. Thanks!