Re: ls -Rd behavior

[John Cowan]

Eric Blake scripsit:

> The problem is that TRT isn't defined.  Suppose you have a/b/c, and pwd is
> in a.  Should 'ls -dR *' print data on b/c, or stop recursing at b?

On my assumption that -R controls what files ls visits, and -d controls
what is printed about them, I'd say it should print data on b/c; i.e.
recurse all the way down, printing information on all files and
directories found, basically like "find | xargs ls -d".

> Not that I'm opposed to a change in behavior.  But it is much quicker to
> code up a patch that rejects the combination, since the current semantics
> are confusing, than it is to do a more complicated patch and document how
> the two interact.

I agree that it's better to complain than just to silently ignore one
switch, and I am not opposed to such a patch: I do think it should say
something like "ls -dR not yet implemented; try find | xargs ls -d".

> Compare how coreutils behaves for other tough choices, such as
> 'mv -t dest -T src'.

Not comparable:  -t and -T really are logically contradictory, and the
error message is sensible.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    address@hidden
Mr. Henry James writes fiction as if it were a painful duty.  --Oscar Wilde