[TUHS] Command line options and complexity
usotsuki at buric.co
Thu Mar 12 13:34:46 AEST 2020
On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 March 2020 at 20:53:12 -0400, Steve Nickolas wrote:
>> I went through all the switches defined by POSIX, and figured that
>> those 26 could be cut down.
> A brave man to defy POSIX! I wasn't so brave, which is why we have
> the -y option.
>> My concept reduced the number of switches from 26 to 9 (FLRadfiln).
>> Of course, the idea is to be more minimalist than POSIX, so some
>> people's opinions on what is or isn't necessary may differ from
> OK, let's compare notes:
>> I felt -A was a redundant "almost -a".
> Arguably -a could go too. The distinction seems arbitrary.
Well, I think one or the other would be desirable. I figured -a was the
better to keep - since it shows all dotfiles where -A leaves off . and ..
>> I felt -C and -x were redundant because a tool like column(1) could be
>> used to do the same job (even though column(1) isn't POSIX).
> Neither would this ls(1) be.
Of course. ;)
> -S isn't POSIX. And to implement it without an option would mean
> removing -h.
-h is a gnuism, isn't it?
specify the -S switch. That's POSIX, isn't it?
> As I mentioned earlier, -t can't be done by a filter without
> significantly modifying the timestamp output. That was my rationale
> for the -D option, which allows sorting by an external filter.
Honestly if the date format weren't standardized as it were, I would've
standardized on "yyyy-mm-dd,mm:ss" - which wouldn't need special
processing in order to pump into sort(1).
>> I felt -c and -u were meaningless, but that's because of the filesystems I
>> usually work with that do not have functional equivalents. -u for one is
>> completely useless on VFAT even though it has such timestamps! YMMV.
> I think this says more about your file systems than about the options.
> I find both incredibly useful, and there's no easy way to get the
> information elsewhere. stat(1) would be an option, but then that
> could replace ls(1) completely.
> So, any others?
> -G: Colorized output. I'd be *really* happy to get rid of this, but
> it's not easy to instate with a filter, so I suppose there are
> enough people who like it that it will have to stay.
> -P: Seems only to be there to cancel a -H or -L.
> -W: "Display whiteouts when scanning directories". I don't even
> understand what that is.
I was using the link I referenced as my "standard", which doesn't have any
I can take or leave color ls. I don't like the GNU defaults because dark
blue is TOO dark on my default settings. I think the flags are adequate
to know what kind of file I'm dealing with.
> -f: We haven't really discussed this one. If you want to remove -S,
> -r and -t, then arguably -f should become the default and be
I used to use "dir|sort" a lot on PC DOS before it got "dir /o" in 5.0. I
wouldn't have a problem with removing sort from ls altogether.
> Of course, none of this will happen. But it is interesting to think
> about it. In particular, options like -g and -o, which are no longer
More information about the TUHS