Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No, more like the following: (warning, these are `made-up' format directives; >> it'd take some careful thought to come up with proper choices): >> >> ls --format="%M %I %U %G %B %D %f\n" >> >> Implementing something like that properly >> would involve a significant amount of work. >> If you're interested, look at how GNU find's -printf works. > > I do not believe it would be a significant amount of work:
If you can do it with an insignificant amount of work, that'd be great. Have you just volunteered? ;-) > http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/snprintfv (whenever that > goes back online again). Personally, I'd choose to avoid > one letter cryptic entries and opt for: > > ls --format="%w.n{mod} $w{inode} ${userid} ${username} ..." I like the verbose names. Are there really three different types of syntax: %w, $w{} and ${}? _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
