Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ncr-sd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!greg
From: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: ls -C considered harmful (really ls follies)
Message-ID: <261@ncr-sd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 20:39:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.261
Posted: Thu Aug 15 20:39:43 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:57:52 EDT
References: <3123@nsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@ncr-sd.UUCP (Greg Noel)
Organization: NCR Corporation, Torrey Pines
Lines: 16

In article <3123@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>Do you realize that for all the billions and billions of options hacked
>into ls, I've never seen a version of ls that can sort files based on size?

Well, I have.  A version of `ls' from the University of Illinois called `lz'
had an option that did that.  It also had an option that did directories
recursivly.......

I do think that it is the case that the options to `ls' are not sufficiently
orthogonal.  For example, many times I have wanted to print out just the file
size in bytes and the name, and I can't do it easily.  In retrospect, it would
have been better to have a set of options that controlled which colums were
to be printed and another set to specify which columns should be sorted.  Or
is that too obvious?
-- 
-- Greg Noel, NCR Rancho Bernardo    Greg@ncr-sd.UUCP or Greg@nosc.ARPA