On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Peng Yu <pengyu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 04/17/2015 11:03 AM, Peng Yu wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> On 04/17/2015 10:10 AM, Peng Yu wrote: >>>>> Hi, I got the following results when I call sort with -t /. It seems >>>>> that 'a/1.txt' should be right after 'a'. Is it the case? Or I am not >>>>> using sort correctly? >>>> >>>> Your assumption is correct - you are using sort incorrectly, by failing >>>> to take locales into account, and by failing to limit the amount of data >>>> being compared to single field widths. >>> >>> Thanks for the explanation. >>> >>> If I don't know the number of fields, but I want to sort according to >>> all fields (from 1 to whatever the max number of fields), is there a >>> way to do it? >> >> No one has really asked for that before. Are you going to propose some >> possible extension syntax to make it obvious how to generate as many key >> specifications as necessary to fully cover an arbitrary number of fields >> in a line? > > Since no -k options means treat each line just a whole string, maybe > one can allow -k without specifying any columns as treating each line > as all the set of fields in that line?
BTW, one application of this syntax is to sort `find` is output. I.e., one want to put things under a directory to right after the directory name itself. My proposed syntax would work for this problem. But maybe there is an alternative solution to this problem? -- Regards, Peng
