From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Aug 23 2:38:21 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C097D1563A; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 02:37:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com) by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1) id 11IqWG-000Cl0-00; Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: "Brian F. Feldman" Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ls(1) options affecting -l long format In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:00:05 MST." Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:36:00 +0200 Message-ID: <49041.935400960@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 use ls -l. That's good enough for me. :-) 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. I'm not to phased with backward compatibility on this one, since I think it's always been understood that the output of ls isn't really intended for scripts (that's what find and test are for). The OpenGroup spec actually makes a point of that in its manpage. Thanks for your input. Later, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message