bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Hello, On 2016-11-12 5:27 a.m., Rüdiger Meier wrote: On Friday 11 November 2016 21:00:23 Eric Blake wrote: On 11/11/2016 12:26 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: Michael Schwager wrote: Don't you think I can see the spaces in my filenames? We created a summary of common issues and FAQs regarding

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On Friday 11 November 2016 21:00:23 Eric Blake wrote: > On 11/11/2016 12:26 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > > Michael Schwager wrote: > >> Don't you think I can see the spaces in my filenames? > > > > Not in general, no. For example: > > > > $ ls --quoting-style=literal > > a b c > > $ ls > > 'a b'

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On 11/11/2016 05:20 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: BTW \u2019 might not be the best choice, as I tweeted recently (with corresponding quotes in each example): It's awkward for file names to use shell quote It’s awkward for word regex to use right quote Itʼs best to use apostrophe modifier

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On 12/11/16 00:24, Paul Eggert wrote: > Michael Schwager wrote: >> please illustrate a real life problem > > In general, file names can be chosen by an adversary. This is a real-life > problem for me, and for many other people (whether they know it or not). > > Eric Blake's arguments for

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Michael Schwager wrote: please illustrate a real life problem In general, file names can be chosen by an adversary. This is a real-life problem for me, and for many other people (whether they know it or not). Eric Blake's arguments for leaving things alone are cogent ones. You can try to

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Can anyone point me to the mailing list discussion where this originally was decided? There are legion of coreutils users out there who are dumbfounded and who detest this change; I see that Debian has reverted it. However, I (and Debian) could be wrong. I'd like to see the original discussion

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Am 11.11.2016 um 22:23 schrieb Eric Blake: > > Knowing the pitfalls makes it easier to justify why an output that is > unambiguous Will it honor alt-space at some point? > was chosen as the new default over the previous ambiguous > output;

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Eric Blake wrote: On 11/11/2016 03:25 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: Eric Blake wrote: If the idea is that the quoting is there to make copy-and-pasting into a shell command line easier, then there is nothing we can do that is less aggressive, since failing to quote spaces changes what the shell

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On 11/11/2016 03:25 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: > Eric Blake wrote: >> >> If the idea is that the quoting is there to make copy-and-pasting into a >> shell command line easier, then there is nothing we can do that is less >> aggressive, since failing to quote spaces changes what the shell will >> do.

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Eric Blake wrote: He didn't have to. His point was merely that with the old ls, you can have inherently ambiguous situations. Think of it as an exercise for the reader to figure out ways to get into those ambiguous situations. Good communication isn't supposed to be a puzzle.

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Eric Blake wrote: Knowing the pitfalls makes it easier to justify why an output that is unambiguous was chosen as the new default over the previous ambiguous output; any further changes to the default are now a matter of fine-tuning about how much (or how little) decoration we can get away

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Eric Blake wrote: If the idea is that the quoting is there to make copy-and-pasting into a shell command line easier, then there is nothing we can do that is less aggressive, since failing to quote spaces changes what the shell will do. I assume you are talking about

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On 11/11/2016 03:08 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: > > > Eric Blake wrote: touch 'a b' c >> >> That's your problem. Paul did: >> >> $ touch 'a b' c > > He didn't list his creation command. How > would you know? Because that's what worked for me to reproduce his commands. > > >>

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Eric Blake wrote: touch 'a b' c That's your problem. Paul did: $ touch 'a b' c He didn't list his creation command. How would you know? with two spaces, not one. --- You are assuming that. But if he didn't list how he created them... Where (or under what

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > ...Having two > different quoting modes, where you can choose between the options, may > be the way to go - but then you STILL have the problem of what to pick > as the default of those two modes when neither one was

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

On 11/11/2016 12:26 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > Michael Schwager wrote: >> Don't you think I can see the spaces in my filenames? > > Not in general, no. For example: > > $ ls --quoting-style=literal > a b c > $ ls > 'a b' c > > That being said, perhaps 'ls' could quote less aggressively. If

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Michael Schwager wrote: I don't have single quotes in many of my filenames, although I do in some. --- How did this get displayed? In shell, 'foo \' bar' wouldn't be displayed correctly since you can't use backslash to escape inside a single quoted string. That is just plain ugly.

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

Michael Schwager wrote: Don't you think I can see the spaces in my filenames? Not in general, no. For example: $ ls --quoting-style=literal a b c $ ls 'a b' c That being said, perhaps 'ls' could quote less aggressively. If 'ls' always arranges for at least two spaces between file

bug#24926: ls output has been made ugly

"...we don't mean to dictate, only to improve things" -Pádraig Brady Feb 15 at 20:46 Somebody went