[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <
From: |
Ruediger Meier |
Subject: |
bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du> |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:12:16 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.10 |
On Tuesday 15 November 2011, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 11/15/11 08:45, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> >> -KB 1000, K 1024, MB 1000*1000, M 1024*1024, and so on for G, T,
> >> P, E, Z, Y.\n\ +KB (1000), K (1024), MB (1000KB), M (1024K), and
> >> so on for G, T, P, E, Z, Y.\n\
> >
> > That would be fine with me. (I find them equally confusing. :-)
>
> I'm 60/40 for the use of "*" (i.e., 1000*1000), because with it,
> each comma-separated item is self-contained.
>
> In your replacement, each of MB and M relies on the
> just-defined "KB" or "K" notation. Without that context,
> they may be misinterpreted.
I also think the multiplier version is a bit easier to read.
My preferred one would be something like this:
-SIZE is an integer with an optional suffix (example: 10MB). Suffixes are:\n\
-KB 1000, K 1024, MB 1000*1000, M 1024*1024, and so on for G, T, P, E, Z, Y.\n\
+SIZE is an integer with an optional unit, e.g. 10M (1024*1024). Valid units\n\
+are K, M, G, T, P, E, Z, Y (powers of 1024) or KB, MB, ... (powers of 1000).\n\
I guess if we've had 20 chars more or even a whole line then it could be
slightly polished to be really readable and clearly. ;)
cu,
Rudi
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, (continued)
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/10
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/12
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, abdallah clark, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Voelker, Bernhard, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>,
Ruediger Meier <=
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Jim Meyering, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Ruediger Meier, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, RĂ¼diger Meier, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Eric Blake, 2011/11/16
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls> and <du>, Paul Eggert, 2011/11/15
- bug#9939: Problems with the SIZE description in man pages for <ls>, Alan Curry, 2011/11/09