[Toybox] Logjam broken!

[Andre Renaud]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
> Andre: I'm sorry, but I completely replaced the ls implementation you
> did. I started adapting it and then realized that the sorting and
> directory descent logic (required by the standard) required more control
> over the traversal order than the existing design gave.  You actually
> _can't_ deal with the command line arguments individually, you have to
> put them together into a pile and deal with them in multiple passes (one
> of which is sorting them, and there's also lookahead for the indent and
> -C logic, plus that whole "print the name: or don't print the name"
> logic, which is sort of evil really). It took me a couple weeks of
> poking at it to get the basics right, and it's still got bugs (-R isn't
> currently recursing properly, for example).
>
> I left your copyright notice on the file because your version did
> provide me with an important starting point (albeit the insight was "no,
> I can't make it work this way").  I can take it off if you don't feel
> like getting emails about this implementation.

Hi Rob,
I'm not fussed either way - feels a bit bad having my copyright
attributed to something I didn't write, so perhaps removing it is the
best idea.

Being involved in this mailing list (and to a very small degree the
development) has really opened my eyes to the complexity of the
standard command line tools. In some cases it definitely seems
excessive, but I guess necessary to cover all the functionality that
people have become accustomed to.

Regards,
Andre