Subject: Re: bug#21218: ls -d

From: Eric Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:47:29 -0600

On 08/10/2015 01:09 PM, Sneeh, Eddie wrote:

> Since these switches are already taken to do other things, what do you
> think about this:
> % ls -fo (list files only)
> % ls -lo (list links only)
> % ls -do (list directories only)

Won't work.  'ls -o' is already a valid command, so 'ls -fo' is the same
as 'ls -o -f' or 'ls -f -o'.  You can't start a long-option name with a
single dash; at least, not in coreutils which uses getopt_long() (there
are some exceptions, like gcc, which use getopt_long_only() for
historical reasons, and which therefore can spell long options with a
single dash if there is no ambiguity, but use of getopt_long_only() is
not recommended in new programs).

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org