Good morning,
> From:Erik Auerswald, Date:Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:00:32 +0200
>
> Hi,
> [...]
> Numbers between 32 bit SIZE_MAX and 64 bit SIZE_MAX will show
> differing behavior between 32 and 64 bit platforms (and data models).
> In practice this should be irrelevant, but it might result in very
> obscure failures. Explicitly setting the width to infinity, that is
> not adding any line breaks, avoides that.
> I would not consider 0 to be a valid width value, and the ls command
> agrees:
I was afraid that the core of the feature request was lost, thanks Erik to remind it.
It is indeed very different to say:
-w 18 quintillion => max 64 bits
or
-w 4 billion => max 32 bits
or
-w 0 => infinity any arch. (just not printing "\n")
Of course it is "practically" irrelevant (it would take 12 thousands years to list a directory in a line with 18 quintillion chars, 50 million chars per second). But I for myself don't like "theoretical" bugs inserted in code.
> [...]
> Beco's suggestion of 0 has precedent and seems
> more obvious to me than requiring a special keyword.
IMHO, -w0 reminds me old UNIX, and I like tradition. But whatever you say, I'm happy with; as long as it is infinity, not max.
For now, my ~/.bashrc holds:
---- ~/.bashrc ----
alias ll='ls -l'
alias la='ls -lah'
alias l.='ls -d * .*'
alias lm='ls -mw18446744073709551615' #(or -w4294967295 for 32 bits systems)
---- end of cut ----
Also, just to give another option (brainstorming some food for tought), its is possible to consider -w without argument to be infinity.
$ ls -w -m
Man page: -w without arguments for no line breaks.
Anyway, just an idea. (I still vote for -w0 though).
> [...]
> Erik
Cheers,
Beco