[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ls -l --no-total
From: |
Felipe Kellermann |
Subject: |
Re: ls -l --no-total |
Date: |
Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:44:33 -0300 (BRST) |
User-agent: |
Pine <http://www.washington.edu/pine/> |
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 5:39am +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Did I mention ls should have a --no-total option
> > to remove those annoying
> > total 1120
> > without needing to pipe to a filter.
>
> Another possibility would be to output the `total' to stderr.
>
> The horror, why do people come up with these silly ideas? `total
> NNNNN' is not a error message, and doesn't belong on stderr.
I've seen other programs printing only informative messages to stderr.
And doing a find + fgrep I can even see coreutils programs doing so.
It obviously ins't possible to change so drasticaly the behavior of `ls'
by simple printing `total' to stderr. But perhaps a switch to printing
only informative messages to stderr could be fine and allow for provable
future additions (e.g., recent `dd' informative messages) to do the same.
> Do it correctly, extend ls so that the user can modify the output like
> for stat.
>
> I'm still horrified...
I know this behavior is standardized but IIRC I've already read about
(old) implementations that printed the `total' to stderr.
--
Felipe Kellermann