On Monday 03 October 2011 19:54:12 Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Monday 03 October 2011 18:25:10 Bruno Haible wrote: > > g) Must return 0. > > h) Must return 0. > > i) Must return 0. > > Does the above mean that you want to change the current behavior of ls -l?
Please ignore this. The above is correct. My testing setup was bogus. Kamil
