|
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:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 |
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. -- MatthewA 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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |