[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#21218: ls -d
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
bug#21218: ls -d |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:47:29 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 |
On 08/10/2015 01:09 PM, Sneeh, Eddie wrote:
> Since these switches are already taken to do other things, what do you
> think about this:
> % ls -fo (list files only)
> % ls -lo (list links only)
> % ls -do (list directories only)
Won't work. 'ls -o' is already a valid command, so 'ls -fo' is the same
as 'ls -o -f' or 'ls -f -o'. You can't start a long-option name with a
single dash; at least, not in coreutils which uses getopt_long() (there
are some exceptions, like gcc, which use getopt_long_only() for
historical reasons, and which therefore can spell long options with a
single dash if there is no ambiguity, but use of getopt_long_only() is
not recommended in new programs).
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- bug#21218: ls -d, Sneeh, Eddie, 2015/08/07
- bug#21218: ls -d, Eric Blake, 2015/08/07
- bug#21218: ls -d, Rainer M. Canavan, 2015/08/08
- bug#21218: ls -d, Sneeh, Eddie, 2015/08/10
- bug#21218: ls -d, Assaf Gordon, 2015/08/10
- bug#21218: ls -d, Sneeh, Eddie, 2015/08/10
- bug#21218: ls -d, Assaf Gordon, 2015/08/10
- bug#21218: ls -d, Sneeh, Eddie, 2015/08/10
- bug#21218: ls -d, Bob Proulx, 2015/08/12
- bug#21218: ls -d,
Eric Blake <=
- bug#21218: ls -d, Sneeh, Eddie, 2015/08/10
bug#21218: ls -d, Bob Proulx, 2015/08/09