On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 5:39am +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > Did I mention ls should have a --no-total option > > to remove those annoying > > total 1120 > > without needing to pipe to a filter. > > Another possibility would be to output the `total' to stderr. > > The horror, why do people come up with these silly ideas? `total > NNNNN' is not a error message, and doesn't belong on stderr.
I've seen other programs printing only informative messages to stderr. And doing a find + fgrep I can even see coreutils programs doing so. It obviously ins't possible to change so drasticaly the behavior of `ls' by simple printing `total' to stderr. But perhaps a switch to printing only informative messages to stderr could be fine and allow for provable future additions (e.g., recent `dd' informative messages) to do the same. > Do it correctly, extend ls so that the user can modify the output like > for stat. > > I'm still horrified... I know this behavior is standardized but IIRC I've already read about (old) implementations that printed the `total' to stderr. -- Felipe Kellermann _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
