Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Rosengart <ben@skunk.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ls(1) options affecting -l long format Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908241152530.36279-100000@penelope.skunk.org> In-Reply-To: <68717.935487874@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 annoying. If I specify -o, I want to see the file flags; "ls -o" producing the same output as "ls" is just ... weird. As you can see, my argument is as rational and well-supported as yours is. ;-) -- Ben UNIX Systems Engineer, Skunk Group StarMedia Network, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908241152530.36279-100000>