On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> We also have a precedent for options which affect but do not imply a
> long listing (-o). I believe we should stick with that precedent and
> leave -n as it is.
Why not change -o's behavior too? I find the current behavior
unintuitive and kind of annoy
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> We also have a precedent for options which affect but do not imply a
> long listing (-o). I believe we should stick with that precedent and
> leave -n as it is.
Why not change -o's behavior too? I find the current behavior
unintuitive and kind of anno
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:23:21 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
> > of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
I've been playing with the ls(1) that this patch produces and now that
I've had some
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:23:21 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
> > of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
I've been playing with the ls(1) that this patch produces and now that
I've had some
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:14 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
> of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
The diff for this change is available from:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sheldonh/ls.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:13:14 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> The -n option will imply -l, but -o will be a no-op unless at least one
> of -n and -l is specified. Manpage changes will be included in the deal.
The diff for this change is available from:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sheldonh/ls
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of
> compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with
> a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l.
Eeek, I've been confused. Our -o and the
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> If there are no objections (other than the obvious backward issue of
> compatibility) in the next few days, I'll bring Chris's change in (with
> a style fix), as well as teaching -o to imply -l.
Eeek, I've been confused. Our -o and the
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
> for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
> using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
> where you'd otherwise
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
> for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
> using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
> where you'd otherwis
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
> issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g
> for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option.
Yes, I agree that that's wha
Hi folks,
Chris Costello recently committed (and then backed out at my request) a
change to ls(1) that made -n (numeric ID's instead of names) imply -l
(long format).
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGro
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
> issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g
> for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option.
Yes, I agree that that's wh
Hi folks,
Chris Costello recently committed (and then backed out at my request) a
change to ls(1) that made -n (numeric ID's instead of names) imply -l
(long format).
The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGr
14 matches
Mail list logo
