[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --format flag
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: --format flag |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:42:57 +0100 |
Bruce Korb <address@hidden> wrote:
>> No, more like the following: (warning, these are `made-up' format directives;
>> it'd take some careful thought to come up with proper choices):
>>
>> ls --format="%M %I %U %G %B %D %f\n"
>>
>> Implementing something like that properly
>> would involve a significant amount of work.
>> If you're interested, look at how GNU find's -printf works.
>
> I do not believe it would be a significant amount of work:
If you can do it with an insignificant amount of work, that'd be great.
Have you just volunteered? ;-)
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/snprintfv (whenever that
> goes back online again). Personally, I'd choose to avoid
> one letter cryptic entries and opt for:
>
> ls --format="%w.n{mod} $w{inode} ${userid} ${username} ..."
I like the verbose names.
Are there really three different types of syntax: %w, $w{} and ${}?
- --format flag, Chris Van Nuys, 2003/12/13
- Re: --format flag, Bruce Korb, 2003/12/16
- Re: --format flag,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: --format flag, Bruce Korb, 2003/12/16
- Re: --format flag, Bruce Korb, 2003/12/16
- proposed new program: getpwnam [Re: --format flag, Jim Meyering, 2003/12/18
- Re: proposed new program: getpwnam [Re: --format flag, Bruce Korb, 2003/12/18
- Re: proposed new program: getpwnam [Re: --format flag, Bruce Korb, 2003/12/30
- Re: proposed new program: getpwnam [Re: --format flag, Bob Proulx, 2003/12/20