[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du)
From: |
Matthias Schniedermeyer |
Subject: |
Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du) |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 17:30:15 +0100 (CET) |
Hi
> You wanted it included, not me. I'm just telling you what you should
> do to make Jim happy. =)
I don't WANT it to be included. It was a suggestion, nothing more, nothing
less.
> Some more nitpicks, I don't think this option deserves an short
> option.
EOT.
> And maybe you could make the long option take an argument? I.e.
> something like --broader-size=12, this way you won't hit a "limit", and
> you give the user freedom to pick her own preference. Also, the option
> name sucks, it should be something more descriptive, maybe --size-width?
Let's wait until someone implements.
--output-format='%f %s[..]'
(See "find" for all the options that should be there)
Bis denn
--
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
- Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/15
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Matthias Schniedermeyer, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du), Alfred M. Szmidt, 2003/01/16
- Re: Size for Size is too small (ls/du),
Matthias Schniedermeyer <=