Hi Bob, thanks for the info. If ya'll don't want to consider this a bug, that's fine, but I suggest updating the definition for -d to clarify the true behavior. If it must be used with other options for it to be useful, then the definition should say so because I sure don't see "list directory entries instead of contents". I'm yet to see the usefulness of this option (used alone), other than in Eric's example, which is what I was after. If someone has some examples of ls -d usage, *without adding other switches* , I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, Eddie
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Bob Proulx <[email protected]> wrote: > Sneeh, Eddie wrote: > > I believe there is a problem with ls -d (unless the intent is to just > list > > 1 directory). > > Just noting this has an FAQ entry: > > > http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#ls-_002dd-does-not-list-directories_0021 > > Bob > -- Best Regards, *Eddie Sneeh*
