Re: [PATCH] ls --group-directories-first: symlinks to dirs are dirs too

[Matthew Woehlke]

Linda Walsh wrote:
>     It would be inconsistent with the proprietary OS's behavior
> after which the option was modeled.  Is that logical?
>
>     Believe me, I understand wanting to see symlinks to dirs grouped
> with dirs, but this isn't how it's done in explorer and doesn't seem
> consistent.  I wouldn't mind a "treat-symlinks-to-dirs-as-dirs" type
> option, but that seems awfully esoteric.  Why should symlinks to dirs
> be treated differently from symlinks to non-dirs? ....

Forget (cough) "the proprietary OS"... Konqueror treats symlinks like 
the files they point to, i.e. symlinks-to-dirs are sorted with dirs. 
Symlinks-to-other are treated like "other" as well, though, which I 
think is what you were saying in the bit I snipped.

So +1 for ls grouping symlinks-to-dirs with dirs.

>     If I use classifier suffixes (as my aliases always enable), then
> how would a symlink->dir be flagged?   "dir/" or "dir@"?

How about 'dir/@'? I guess we'd do all this with --dereference-and-show 
or something (unless we'd agree to change --dereference).

> Perhaps it would be "logical" (if anyone think I'm daft, I'm sure they'll
> speak up)...to group symlinks to names that end in "/" be grouped with
> dirs, while symlinks to names w/o "/" are treated same as now...?

Um... I for one don't think so.

--
Matthew
A pool hall put up a sign in their front window that read: "Profound 
language prohibited within." I could just imagine some people discussing 
the meaning of life and being told to take it outside. -- Scott Adams