Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
ls implementation with extras - #183
Conversation
spytheman
commented
Dec 26, 2024
(rebased over latest |
spytheman
commented
Dec 26, 2024
While I do prefer the output of your version, since it is clearer and easier to read to me, |
JalonSolov
commented
Dec 26, 2024
If you wanted to add an option (that wouldn't be tested against the GNU version), to give the nicer output, that's fine. The default using the regular options should match. |
makes sense. I'll see what I can do. Also I'm using GNU |
mike-ward
commented
Dec 29, 2024
Made some changes to allow the format to look more like GNU. However, there are still significant differences.
If your goal is parity with GNU then this pull request is likely not going to work. No hard feelings. It was fun to write. |
JalonSolov
commented
Dec 29, 2024
GNU The only other difference was the total blocks line at the top of the GNU version, while yours has (much nicer!) separation of dirs vs files, and total file sizes. Probably the main thing about these tools... the main reason for doing them... is to be able to use them as "drop-in" replacements for the GNU versions. At least by default, or when using the same options as the GNU tools. Extra options are fine (far as I'm concerned). They just need to look/act the same as much as possible when not using extra options. |
ls from GNU coreutils on Linux sorts case-insensitive. |
JalonSolov
commented
Dec 30, 2024
It appears Mac's |
JalonSolov
commented
Jun 24, 2025
@mike-ward Any plans to work on this again? If not, would you be open to someone else taking what's here and running with it? |
mike-ward
commented
Jun 24, 2025
I don't mind at all. Have fun with it. |



Includes most of the usual
lsfeatures plus some extras like table format, checksums and icons.