On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 03:47:05PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote:
> 2013/10/5 Rob :
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:45:56PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote:
> > I disagree - rather than adding a sort call and changing the program's
> > runtime complexity, can't we just reduce the amount of lines _and_
> > dup
2013/10/5 Rob :
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:45:56PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote:
>> 2013/10/4 Raphaël Proust :
>> If we want to retain this patch, I'd suggest reversing array after
>> sorting, not multiplying by `sortorder' in comparison functions. This
>> avoids code duplication.
>
> I disagree - r
Rob wrote:
> I disagree - rather than adding a sort call and changing the program's
> runtime complexity, can't we just reduce the amount of lines _and_
> duplication like this:
>
> @@ -89,9 +93,9 @@ entcmp(const void *va, const void *vb)
> const Entry *a = va, *b = vb;
>
> - if(tfl
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:45:56PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote:
> 2013/10/4 Raphaël Proust :
> If we want to retain this patch, I'd suggest reversing array after
> sorting, not multiplying by `sortorder' in comparison functions. This
> avoids code duplication.
I disagree - rather than adding a sort
Raphaël Proust dixit:
>On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Alexander S. wrote:
>> Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
>
>At which points someone asks why is there a sorted order at all in ls
>output… cannot this be achieved by piping output to sort?
Only if you pipe it through rs¹
Alexander S. wrote:
> If we want to retain this patch, I'd suggest reversing array after
> sorting, not multiplying by `sortorder' in comparison functions. This
> avoids code duplication.
Good suggestion. I will implement it tonight.
--Markus
Alexander S. wrote:
> Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote:
> Yes, but tac it is no a standard posix tool, and sbase also hasn't it.
> I have an awk script in my machine for it:
Both solutions mean iterating over the list once more to reverse the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 02:40:57PM +0100, Raphaël Proust wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Alexander S. wrote:
> > Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
>
> At which points someone asks why is there a sorted order at all in ls
> output… cannot this be achieved by piping out
2013/10/4 Raphaël Proust :
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Alexander S. wrote:
>> Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
>
> At which points someone asks why is there a sorted order at all in ls
> output… cannot this be achieved by piping output to sort?
sort(1) can only sort by n
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Alexander S. wrote:
> Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
At which points someone asks why is there a sorted order at all in ls
output… cannot this be achieved by piping output to sort?
--
__
Raphaël Proust
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 05:32:23PM +0400, Alexander S. wrote:
> Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
Yes, but tac it is no a standard posix tool, and sbase also hasn't it.
I have an awk script in my machine for it:
#!/usr/bin/awk -f
{line[last++] = $0;}
END {
for (
Uh, cannot this be achieved by piping output to tac?
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 06:42:08PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote:
> Now you can list directory contents ordered by mtime with the latest file
> displayed last in the output.
Please consider using git format-patch.
Thanks,
sin
Now you can list directory contents ordered by mtime with the latest file
displayed last in the output.
---
ls.1 | 3 +++
ls.c | 8 ++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ls.1 b/ls.1
index 00ae32b..f10c929 100644
--- a/ls.1
+++ b/ls.1
@@ -21,6 +21,9 @@ lists direct
14 matches
Mail list logo
