Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:40:18 +0100
From:      Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>
To:        "freebsd-current@freebsd.org >> FreeBSD Current" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Enhancing the user experience with tcsh
Message-ID:  <4F355682.7050504@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <1328892101.38277.88.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>
References:  <CAF6rxgnebQUY8azv8fovQPkB%2BGgsQjaByZ6JwnNWjrM1hB65eQ@mail.gmail.com> <1328887627.38277.68.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <CAF6rxgmjQX%2B8hZVdjYBHJfonegavYhY_22gyVszpPvxhAKbvTA@mail.gmail.com> <1328892101.38277.88.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 10.02.2012 17:41, schrieb Gavin Atkinson:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:25 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote:
>> Picking a random email to reply to.
>>
>> My goal with this email is to reduce the amount of "controversial" changes.
> 
> I applaud this.  I've often considered doing the same but avoided it
> because it was easier than fighting the bikeshed :)
> 
>> commit 3ea4ea3a59d14cb060244618dd89d7dd0170bee1
>> diff --git a/etc/root/dot.cshrc b/etc/root/dot.cshrc
>> --- a/etc/root/dot.cshrc
>> +++ b/etc/root/dot.cshrc
>> @@ -7,9 +7,10 @@
>>
>>  alias h                history 25
>>  alias j                jobs -l
>> -alias la       ls -a
>> +alias la       ls -aF
>>  alias lf       ls -FA
>> -alias ll       ls -lA
>> +alias ll       ls -lAF
>> +alias ls       ls -F
>>
>> Two people didn't like these changes but didn't explain why. This is
>> incredibly helpful, especially for a new user.  If you dislike the
>> alias change please explain what bothers you about it?
> 
> I don't use the first two aliases, so I don't care about them at all.  I
> do however disagree strongly with changing the default options on such a
> widely used command.

Those aliases are only meant for interactive use and should be hidden in
batch shells, IMO.

> This change is disruptive, and it can affect use of ls(1) in scripts.
> For example, it even sticks the extra characters in the output of
> "ls -1" (the number 1), which is specifically designed to be used when
> piping the output elsewhere.  Please do not break this.  It is also
> distracting - If I want to see what type of file a particular entry is,
> why not just run "ls -l"?

Yes, having -F modify the output of "ls -1" is bad ...
But "ls -l" is no replacement for "ls -F", in general.

> It's like the tendency some Linux distributions have of 
> "alias mv mv -i", although that can at least be overridden on the
> command line with "-f".  The "ls -F" change cannot be overridden without
> unaliasing.

Well, it can ... There is no need to unalias a command:

> alias ls ls -F
> ls -d /etc
/etc/
> \ls -d /etc
/etc

Just put a back-slash before the command to use the "pure" version ...

Regards, STefan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F355682.7050504>