[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] ls --group-directories-first: symlinks to dirs are dirs too

From: Matthew Woehlke
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ls --group-directories-first: symlinks to dirs are dirs too
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:48:53 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/ Mnenhy/

Linda Walsh wrote:
    It would be inconsistent with the proprietary OS's behavior
after which the option was modeled.  Is that logical?

    Believe me, I understand wanting to see symlinks to dirs grouped
with dirs, but this isn't how it's done in explorer and doesn't seem
consistent.  I wouldn't mind a "treat-symlinks-to-dirs-as-dirs" type
option, but that seems awfully esoteric.  Why should symlinks to dirs
be treated differently from symlinks to non-dirs? ....

Forget (cough) "the proprietary OS"... Konqueror treats symlinks like the files they point to, i.e. symlinks-to-dirs are sorted with dirs. Symlinks-to-other are treated like "other" as well, though, which I think is what you were saying in the bit I snipped.

So +1 for ls grouping symlinks-to-dirs with dirs.

    If I use classifier suffixes (as my aliases always enable), then
how would a symlink->dir be flagged?   "dir/" or "dir@"?

How about 'dir/@'? I guess we'd do all this with --dereference-and-show or something (unless we'd agree to change --dereference).

Perhaps it would be "logical" (if anyone think I'm daft, I'm sure they'll
speak up)...to group symlinks to names that end in "/" be grouped with
dirs, while symlinks to names w/o "/" are treated same as now...?

Um... I for one don't think so.

A pool hall put up a sign in their front window that read: "Profound language prohibited within." I could just imagine some people discussing the meaning of life and being told to take it outside. -- Scott Adams

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]