Linda Walsh wrote:
It would be inconsistent with the proprietary OS's behavior
after which the option was modeled. Is that logical?
Believe me, I understand wanting to see symlinks to dirs grouped
with dirs, but this isn't how it's done in explorer and doesn't seem
consistent. I wouldn't mind a "treat-symlinks-to-dirs-as-dirs" type
option, but that seems awfully esoteric. Why should symlinks to dirs
be treated differently from symlinks to non-dirs? ....
Forget (cough) "the proprietary OS"... Konqueror treats symlinks like
the files they point to, i.e. symlinks-to-dirs are sorted with dirs.
Symlinks-to-other are treated like "other" as well, though, which I
think is what you were saying in the bit I snipped.
So +1 for ls grouping symlinks-to-dirs with dirs.
If I use classifier suffixes (as my aliases always enable), then
how would a symlink->dir be flagged? "dir/" or "dir@"?
How about 'dir/@'? I guess we'd do all this with --dereference-and-show
or something (unless we'd agree to change --dereference).
Perhaps it would be "logical" (if anyone think I'm daft, I'm sure they'll
speak up)...to group symlinks to names that end in "/" be grouped with
dirs, while symlinks to names w/o "/" are treated same as now...?
Um... I for one don't think so.
--
Matthew
A pool hall put up a sign in their front window that read: "Profound
language prohibited within." I could just imagine some people discussing
the meaning of life and being told to take it outside. -- Scott Adams
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
