Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: net.unix
Subject: Re: ls follies
Message-ID: <381@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 02:35:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.381
Posted: Sat Aug 24 02:35:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 03:17:24 EDT
References: <3123@nsc.UUCP> <1803@reed.UUCP> <321@luke.UUCP> <695@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 28

In article <695@cybvax0.UUCP>, fbp@cybvax0.UUCP (Rick Peralta) writes:
>In article <321@luke.UUCP> you write:
>>>  What gets me is there is no way to convince ls to produce _unsorted_
>>>output!  (never mind why...
>>
>
>How about ls -f.
>
>By the way why does -f have to turn off -l and about everything else ?
>Please followup in net.unix.
>
>
>Rick  ...!cybvax0[!dmc0]!fbp

ls -f will also "list" a directory which is not really a directory at all,
try cat some_dir/ > fake_dir  (where some_dir/ is a directory and fake_dir
is of course an ordinary file) followed by ls -f fake_dir.  You will see the
same result as an unsorted ls -a of some_dir/ .  Because the arg to such a
ls -f might not be a directory at all it would not make sense to stat the
"files" in it.  (Try ls -f /etc/passwd or for more fun, ls -if).
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the
| at&t computer systems division |  s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
                                      or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy