On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> The OpenGroup Single UNIX Specification is quite clear on the following
> issue: -g, -n and -o all imply -l. Of course, the OpenGroup spec uses -g
> for something we don't offer. Our -g is a backward compatibility option.
Yes, I agree that that's what it means.
>
> So my point here relates to -n and -o.
>
> As I mentioned on the PR associated with the addition of the -n
> option, taking it to imply -l does nothing but reduce user-interface
> flexibility. It prevents me from using this in my .profile
>
> alias ls='ls -n'
This makes no sense.
>
> to mean
>
> "When I ask for a long listing, show numeric ID's instead of
> names. If I don't ask for a long listing, don't give me one."
The reason I say it doesn't make sense is that you shouldn't be asking
for a long listing with ls -l if you want numeric ids, you should be
using ls -n. Instead of your alias, you should just be using ls -n
where you'd otherwise use ls -l.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, we should _not_ be following the OpenGroup
> spec's mandate on this issue. I think that -o and -n should continue to
> operate as they do in FreeBSD's and NetBSD's ls, to allow the kind of
> flexibility suggested above. Ideally, the OpenGroup spec should change.
> :-)
The above is not flexibility; it's just different behavior. We need to
follow their specifications so things can be portable.
>
> So what's my question? How hard should we be trying to stick to the
> OpenGroup spec? Whatever we decide should apply to both -n and -o.
>
> Ciao,
> Sheldon.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
>
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman / "Any sufficiently advanced bug is \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | indistinguishable from a feature." |
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! \ -- Rich Kulawiec /
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
