On Thu 27 Sep 2018 at 07:55:56 (-0500), Kent West wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 6:14 PM Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> wrote: > > > On 26/09/2018 10:55, Long Wind wrote: > > > sorry! you're right. > > > after checking ls manual, i find ls has option -1 > > > > Note also that ls will behave like it has the "-1" option if its output > > is piped to another command, even without this option. I like to use the > > "-1" option even in this case because it is what I mean (counting > > entries one per line). > > > > > But also note the difference when using the letter "l" vs the numeral "1": > > westk@westkbox:/opt$ ls -la | wc > 7 56 321 > westk@westkbox:/opt$ ls -1a | wc > 6 6 54 > > The difference is that the letter includes the total count of blocks used > at the top of the list (adding one to the count), whereas the numeral does > not.
But do use 1A, not 1a, if you want to know how many items are in a folder, otherwise . and .. will be included in the count. Cheers, David.
