`ls -s` is missing

[thany]

I'm very used to typing ls -las. It's in my bones. But the -s option isn't available - so can it please be implemented? Or, since the size is already printed with ls -la, it could also be ignored...

Right now it prints an error message for this switch, even though, technically speaking, it's not an error. It's just not implemented ;)

[dthree]

Got it! Will implement as soon as I can.

[thany]

Brilliant!

I'm curious to what it will be exactly, since it implicitly already works :)

[nfischer]

Looks like ls -l and ls -ls are different on my system:

$ ls -l
-rw-rw-r-- 1 user user  126 Feb 29 13:37 foo.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 user user  223 Feb 29 15:11 bar.txt
-rw-rw-r-- 1 user user  101 Feb 29 13:40 baz.txt

$ ls -ls
4 -rw-rw-r-- 1 user user  126 Feb 29 13:37 foo.txt
4 -rw-rw-r-- 1 user user  223 Feb 29 15:11 bar.txt
4 -rw-rw-r-- 1 user user  101 Feb 29 13:40 baz.txt

I think -l gives size in byes, and -s adds in size in blocks.

[thany]

You know, I've never noticed actually. That's how used I am to it :)

But then it might prove a bit more challenging especially on systems that probably maybe don't expose sizes in number of blocks (like Windows). Not sure what I'd expect there on Windows, to be honest.

[nfischer]

A stackoverflow post led me to this helpful section of the source. Looks like this is only available on POSIX.

A warning might be a good alternative if the actual behavior can't be supported.