Oh for sure and - on just about any other system i tried, -n is absolutely necessary
Better yet most linux distros have a -h on sort which is awesome and seamlessly tackles du -sh (human readable output) - sorting things like 8M and 8G in their proper place. Get with it OMVS :) d:/usr$ du -sh *|sort -h 4.0K games 8.0K default 36K var 224K src 47M sbin 82M include 112M local 500M bin 3.3G lib 4.0G share I always feel like i have to backtrack skills learned over decades of other ‘nix’s when using OMVS .. would be nice to have a modern complement of tools and switches. Chad > On Feb 19, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Paul Gilmartin > <0000000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > On 2016-02-19, at 09:26, Bigendian Smalls wrote: >> >> I’m a big proponent of using the switches to be sure and accurate , but in >> the case of the output of du I can’t see where it makes a difference. ... >> > I'll agree with you about output of du. Testing on an OS X system > with signed numbers: > > 639 $ echo " > 1 > -1 > 2 > -2 > 3 > -3 " | sort > > -1 > -2 > -3 > 1 > 2 > 3 > 640 $ > ... not a very good numeric sort. But: > 640 $ echo " > 1 > -1 > 2 > -2 > 3 > -3 " | sort -nk1,1 > -3 > -2 > -1 > > 1 > 2 > 3 > 641 $ > > So, "to be sure and accurate", or perhaps just by habit, I use > "-nk" for numeric sorting. Don't know about floating point or > scientific or engineering notation. Or about DFSORT. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
