Eric Blake scripsit: > The problem is that TRT isn't defined. Suppose you have a/b/c, and pwd is > in a. Should 'ls -dR *' print data on b/c, or stop recursing at b?
On my assumption that -R controls what files ls visits, and -d controls what is printed about them, I'd say it should print data on b/c; i.e. recurse all the way down, printing information on all files and directories found, basically like "find | xargs ls -d". > Not that I'm opposed to a change in behavior. But it is much quicker to > code up a patch that rejects the combination, since the current semantics > are confusing, than it is to do a more complicated patch and document how > the two interact. I agree that it's better to complain than just to silently ignore one switch, and I am not opposed to such a patch: I do think it should say something like "ls -dR not yet implemented; try find | xargs ls -d". > Compare how coreutils behaves for other tough choices, such as > 'mv -t dest -T src'. Not comparable: -t and -T really are logically contradictory, and the error message is sensible. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty. --Oscar Wilde _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
