Good morning,
> From:Erik Auerswald, Date:Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:00:32 +0200 > > Hi, > [...] > Numbers between 32 bit SIZE_MAX and 64 bit SIZE_MAX will show > differing behavior between 32 and 64 bit platforms (and data models). > In practice this should be irrelevant, but it might result in very > obscure failures. Explicitly setting the width to infinity, that is > not adding any line breaks, avoides that. > I would not consider 0 to be a valid width value, and the ls command > agrees: I was afraid that the core of the feature request was lost, thanks Erik to remind it. It is indeed very different to say: -w 18 quintillion => max 64 bits or -w 4 billion => max 32 bits or -w 0 => infinity any arch. (just not printing "\n") Of course it is "practically" irrelevant (it would take 12 thousands years to list a directory in a line with 18 quintillion chars, 50 million chars per second). But I for myself don't like "theoretical" bugs inserted in code. > [...] > Beco's suggestion of 0 has precedent and seems > more obvious to me than requiring a special keyword. IMHO, -w0 reminds me old UNIX, and I like tradition. But whatever you say, I'm happy with; as long as it is infinity, not max. For now, my ~/.bashrc holds: ---- ~/.bashrc ---- alias ll='ls -l' alias la='ls -lah' alias l.='ls -d * .*' alias lm='ls -mw18446744073709551615' #(or -w4294967295 for 32 bits systems) ---- end of cut ---- Also, just to give another option (brainstorming some food for tought), its is possible to consider -w without argument to be infinity. $ ls -w -m Man page: -w without arguments for no line breaks. Anyway, just an idea. (I still vote for -w0 though). > [...] > Erik Cheers, Beco PS. Sorry I could not cc Erik in the mail header; did not get the @. -- Dr Beco A.I. researcher "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" -- Alan Greenspan GPG Key: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x5A107A425102382A Creation date: pgp.mit.edu ID as of 2014-11-09
