Re: [dev] [ls] reform ls

From: Quentin Rameau <quinq.ml_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 14:16:59 +0200

>> To be honest, it's a bit weird how -St are separate booleans, given
>> the fact that you could really better define the behaviour of those
>> flags with an enum { AlphaSort, SizeSort = 'S', TimeSort = 't' },
>> rather than having to always ensure that Sflag and tflag are not both
>> true at once. That's a general complaint, though, rather than directed
>> at your patches.

Well, I went a little over my head there, it isn't necessary to check for
S-flag and t-flag when f-flag is activated as it disables sorting anyway.
As for how r-flag is presently implemented it remains necessary to check,
but it would be indeed better to put r-flag into entcmp.

> Rather use an "int sorttype = 'a';" and change it while parsing the flags.

That then could be done for S-flag and t-flag, I agree.

>> 3. Flags -go are part of XSI, and are unnecessary in POSIX proper. In
>> my mind sbase shouldn't bother with XSI compatibility. But the
>> position of the current sbase devs on POSIX compatibility isn't
>> entirely clear.
>
> XSI only when it doesn't add too much cruft.

Yes, that's why I implemented these trivial options.

Thanks for these comments, I'll work on that as soon as the main
second patch has had some review.
Have a good Sunday!
Received on Sun Apr 19 2015 - 14:16:59 CEST