Subject: bug#49716: no -print0 for ls?

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:02:31 -0700

On 7/26/21 12:52 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:

> The following options don't work well with --null, because they output other,
> additional information or transform/escape the file names:
...
>    -l                         use a long listing format

I don't see a problem with -l, as --null can be a win with -l because 
file names are more-reliably parsed in output from -l --null than they 
are from plain -l.

More generally, I don't see a problem with -F, --file-type, --full-time, 
-g, --indicator-style, -i, -l, -n, -o, -p, -R, -s, or -Z. In all those 
cases it can be a win to use --null so that file names are unambiguous 
and easily parsed.

I do see a problem for -b, -C, --color, -q, -Q, --quoting-style, -x. 
Pádraig made a similar point. I'll look into this and into his other points.

> this
> would IMO warrant a new utility rather than blowing ls(1).

Oh I don't know, ls seems to be a natural home for "Do what 'ls' does, 
except with NUL instead of newline."