bug#36729: 27.0.50; Unclear total in directory listing

[Drew Adams]

> > Another good reason is that a given user's system
> > `ls' command might support switches and behavior
> > that ls-lisp does not support.  That one you left
> > out, and it's the one that most directly concerns
> > ls-lisp.  Ls-lisp is not, and likely will never
> > be, a complete replacement for all of the possible
> > `ls' commands out there.
> 
> That is only true for some switches of GNU 'ls', AFAIK.

And perhaps not just GNU.

ls-lisp supports the `ls' switches that are common.
AFAIK, it doesn't claim to support every switch of
every `ls', even one being added tonight to some
system.

But if I'm wrong, and it commits to keeping up with
all systems that have `ls' and that might add a
switch (or change a switch's behavior), then more
power to it.