Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > `-d'
> > `--directory'
> > List only the name of directories, not the contents. This is
> > most typically used with `-l' to list the information for the
> > directory itself instead of its contents. Do not follow symbolic
> >
Eric Blake writes:
> bash-specific:
> $ (shopt -s nullglob; ls -d */ .[!.]/ .??*/)
$ (shopt -s dotglob; ls -d */)
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
On 04/12/2013 08:06 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Some local wordsmithing turned out the following as a better
> improvement. It lists what it does in the positive first. And
> removes the negative which was seen as being too confusing.
>
> `-d'
> `--directory'
> List only the name of directo
Bob Proulx wrote:
> Option 2 with much more description:
>
> `-d'
> `--directory'
> Do not list the contents of directories. List only the name.
> Without this option any non-option command-line arguments that
> are directories are treated specially and instead of the name the
Bob Proulx wrote:
> 10.1 `ls': List directory contents
> ==
>
> The `ls' program lists information about files (of any type, including
> directories). Options and file arguments can be intermixed
> arbitrarily, as usual.
>
> For non-option command-l
On 04/11/2013 03:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> But for a full list of all subdirectory names excluding '.' and '..',
> you need three globs; and either a shell option that suppresses a glob
> that has no match, or ignoring the errors when ls tries to warn you when
> a glob doesn't match:
>
> Portable
On 04/11/2013 03:13 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> If you didn't want it to list only the name of the directory and not
> the contents then why did you use the -d option? Since -d
> specifically prevents it from listing the contents.
>
>> ls -d, I would think, would tell you the same data that ls wou
On 04/11/13 11:17, r...@electronicstheory.com wrote:
> Is there
> some reason it can't give me what (it appears) the manual says (and what makes
> sense) it should?
Sounds like there's a bug in the manual; it shouldn't say that
"ls -d" outputs only directories. Can you please mention
the wording
tags 14189 + notabug
close 14189
thanks
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#ls-_002dd-does-not-list-directories_0021
r...@electronicstheory.com wrote:
> Once in a blue moon, a person would like to view the subdirectories of the
> directory you are in, without seeing all the various files.
Hello Ray,
Others can provide more detailed information about the rational of the "dot"
file,
but regarding your questions:
r...@electronicstheory.com wrote, On 04/11/2013 02:17 PM:
> Once in a blue moon, a person would like to view the subdirectories of the
> directory you are in, without seein
To: The most gracious and brilliant authors of the ever useful ls command.
(The title is quite heartfelt - no sarcasm intended).
I have to wonder. I've been using *nix of various kinds for nigh unto 15 years.
I ran into an issue today that I've seen many times, and it still irks me.
I've simply
11 matches
Mail list logo
