From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Aug 24 9:29:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from penelope.skunk.org (penelope.skunk.org [208.133.204.51]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CEA114C22 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:26:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ben@penelope.skunk.org) Received: from localhost (ben@localhost) by penelope.skunk.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA36755; Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Ben Rosengart To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ls(1) options affecting -l long format In-Reply-To: <68717.935487874@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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