On 2021/08/20 11:31, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 8/20/21 10:40 AM, L A Walsh wrote:
I wanted it just to work
So use 'stat -c "%s %n"'. That works just fine. 'stat' is a good tool
for this job, and there's no need for yet another 'ls' option for this
rare use case.
stat doesn't come close.
I wanted the automatic-multi column output of 'ls' like "ls -s" gives,
but instead of the disk-space-allocated number as 'du' would be
sufficient for, I wanted 'byte' output -- like the default output of 'ls'
gives.
By default, ls gives you names, or with -l gives you bytes. If you want
a short form that gives you bytes+name, the obvious attempt would be
use of -s with a flag that would say to display bytes.
This rare use case? Having a file-list command that
displays filename+size in a compact form seems one of the
top use use-cases. Yet that seems to be missing.
The default of ls -s should be to display size, not allocated blocks, since
if you want that, 'du' is what first comes to mind to find the
diskspace-used.
