Why has ls never had a parsable option implemented?

Asked Feb 05 '21 at 19:50

Active Feb 05 '21 at 19:50

Viewed 117 times

So we all know you shouldn't parse ls for many reasons, mostly due to filenames allowing almost every character. However why has nobody been able to overcome this in an implementation of ls?

Many commands have a command line argument that will output parsable text to stdout, often csv format. Now I know filenames can have commas but so can csv files, that is a simple fix using double quotes. I guess another issue would be that filenames could also contain double quotes, but I still refuse that the open source hivemind couldn't find some solution to this. What is preventing someone from implementing a parsable option for ls?

asked Feb 05 '21 at 19:50

jesse_b

37,005

Don’t the GNU ls -b and -Q options count? – Stephen Kitt Feb 05 '21 at 20:02
1

It's because of a curse: whoever dares printing filenames in a parsable format is damned to an eternity of suffering. – Feb 05 '21 at 20:07
1

Some feel that ls is only intended for "human consumption"; related; see here – JRFerguson Feb 05 '21 at 20:09
@StephenKitt: if the filename has c style escapes in it these options wont help you actually parse it in a usable manner – jesse_b Feb 05 '21 at 20:11
1

@jesse_b Is this a dupe of your question? https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/112125/is-there-a-reason-why-ls-does-not-have-a-zero-or-0-option? – Kusalananda Feb 05 '21 at 20:16
1

@Kusalananda: yeah it seems so – jesse_b Feb 05 '21 at 20:17
@jesse_b yes they will, the escapes will escaped themselves. – Stephen Kitt Feb 05 '21 at 21:55
Why haven't YOU done it? How do you think FOSS things happen, anyway? – Marc Wilson Feb 05 '21 at 23:30

Why has ls never had a parsable option implemented?

0 Answers0