GNU bug report logs - #20739
25.0.50; Dired switches have no effect when explicit list of files provided

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
Cc: 20739 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#20739: 25.0.50; Dired switches have no effect when explicit list of files provided
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 22:55:05 +0300

> Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 12:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
> Cc: 20739 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > > > It is not about the order.  `r' works, for example - it
> > > > > reverses the order.
> > > >
> > > > No, it doesn't.  The order is always the same as in the list you
> > > > pass to 'dired'.
> > >
> > > That's not what I see.
> > > (dired ("foo" "/path/to/bbbbb" "/path/to/foo.el"
> > >         "/path/to/bar.el")
> > >        "-alFr")
> > > shows the files in Dired in the reverse order: bar.el, foo.el,
> > > bbbbb.
> 
> (I forgot the quote before the list arg, as I'm sure you realized.)
> 
> > Not in my Emacs, built from the latest development sources.
> 
> Interesting.  I definitely see the list reversed correctly, even
> in this very recent build:
> 
> In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (i686-pc-mingw32)
>  of 2015-05-29 on LEG570

I tried on 3 different systems, one of them GNU/Linux -- none of them
exhibits the behavior you describe.

> > > > Yes, and those are all the switches that control the order of
> > > > presenting the files in the listing.
> > >
> > > I don't agree.  Unless you are interpreting "switches that control
> > > the order" as including any switch that affects the display.
> > 
> > I do.
> 
> An odd interpretation of sort order.

A very simple interpretation: anything that needs to rearrange the
files in any way, by examining them together as a collection.

> > > > the others are meaningless when you specify the files explicitly.
> > >
> > > Whether -A, -a, and -B are meaningless is in the eye of the user.
> > > The point is that if you specify an explicit . or .., switch -A
> > > still lists those directories.
> > 
> > They are also shown without -A or -a.  Specifying any files lists
> > them regardless.
> 
> Which is just another way of saying that -A and -a do not remove
> those dot names.  We are agreeing about the effect, but not about
> what it means.  IMO, it means that these switches do not do what
> they say.

They don't do anything, because the list of files to display is
specified by the caller.

> > > Why do you think that what is controlled by the ls-lisp.el code
> > > has nothing to do with this bug report?
> > 
> > Because 'dired' the function is not defined in ls-lisp.el, and it
> > works even without ls-lisp.
> 
> On MS Windows (my report is from a Windows build) it uses ls-lisp
> by default, no?

'dired' on MS-Windows _calls_ functions in ls-lisp.el, but is not
implemented there.  And the behavior you described, which handles the
case of a list as the 1st arg, is not implemented in ls-lisp.el, it is
implemented in subroutines of 'dired' defined on dired.el.

Now, can we please stop splitting hair?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.