On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:23:21 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
I've been playing with the ls(1) that this patch produces and now that
I've had some
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
We also have a precedent for options which affect but do not imply a
long listing (-o). I believe we should stick with that precedent and
leave -n as it is.
Why not change -o's behavior too? I find the current behavior
unintuitive and kind of
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:23:21 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
I've been playing with the ls(1) that this patch produces and now that
I've had some
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
We also have a precedent for options which affect but do not imply a
long listing (-o). I believe we should stick with that precedent and
leave -n as it is.
Why not change -o's behavior too? I find the current behavior
unintuitive and kind of
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g
for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option.
Yes, I agree that that's what
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
where you'd otherwise
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of
compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with
a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l.
Eeek, I've been confused. Our -o and the
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:14 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
The diff for this change is available from:
Hi folks,
Chris Costello recently committed (and then backed out at my request) a
change to ls(1) that made -n (numeric ID's instead of names) imply -l
(long format).
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g
for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option.
Yes, I agree that that's what
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
where you'd otherwise use
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of
compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with
a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l.
Eeek, I've been confused. Our -o and the
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:14 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
The diff for this change is available from:
13 matches
Mail list logo
