Re: qshell, ls, sort by size

Scott Klement wrote:

CRPence wrote:

Hans Boldt wrote:

Scott Klement wrote:

<<SNIP>>
My point is that -S isn't "standard." It's a popular (and,
arguably useful) extension to -S. But it's not a standard,
and therefore not a bug. A poor design decision?
Absolutely, I'll accept that. But I can't see IBM
considering it a bug.

Agreed. As I said before (or perhaps just strongly implied),
IBM can't fix ls in qshell.

To say "IBM can't" I believe is too strong. I know there have
been many incompatible changes which had been made for
significantly lesser reasons. <<SNIP>>

It would be easy enough to add an environment variable which
could define that -S would effect /sort by size/ versus /CCSID
info/ and that some alternate flag would be defined to effect
/CCSID info/. <<SNIP>>

As was pointed out /six days ago/, now... <<SNIP>>

I really think this discussion is making a mountain out of a
molehill. It was a problem that was SOOOO easy to solve. I'm
having a tough time with this thread.

Not sure why my reply was chosen to give that response. I was merely responding to the claim that IBM could not change the feature to function differently than originally coded. IBM in fact *could* if they wanted to, and might even do so if enough people suggested that doing so would be worthwhile; e.g. to ease porting.

I actually have a distaste for all of the cryptic & non-intuitive *nix command line invocations. When I started on the AS/400 I saw its CL as a vivid example in contrast, emphasizing just how poorly *nix was cobbled together by engineers with no obvious common goal. I realized then, that I would never go back to such a crappy interface as what was offered by the command line of *nix shells.

Regards, Chuck