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