Mail Archives: djgpp/2004/10/17/00:54:23
> From: "one2001boy AT yahoo DOT com" <one2001boy AT yahoo DOT com>
> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:00:53 GMT
>
> > ls.exe cannot possibly do that because it sorts the files according to
> > some criterion (by default, the file name). How can it possibly sort
> > the files before it has them all?
> >
>
> It is fine to sort by filename, but I think ls.exe also will check if
> the file is direcotry/file/executable/ etc.
>
> If I have three thousand files, ls.exe might need to process all of them
> and then start to display. What I mean is that if ls.exe sort and then
> check 100 files for directory name/file name/executable, and then
> display those 100 files, and then process the rest files to check the
> directory name/file name/executable. it can avoid the long waiting time.
Take a look at the sources: ls.exe already does what you want.
Others said here that on their systems, ls.exe works much faster
(which is also my experience). You may wish to look into your system
configuration to find the reason(s) why it is slow for you.
> > If all you need is to know whether a file is a directory, then ls.exe
> > is not the best tool for that. Use test.exe from Sh-utils, or
> > find.exe from Findutils. They are much faster for this kind of job.
>
> I want to display all files and subdirectories in a directory, not only
> one file or one subdirectory in a directory.
Sorry, I don't understand: if you want to display all files and
subdirectories, then what files you do NOT want to display? Files and
subdirectories is all we have on Windows, right? So why a simple
"ls", without -F, won't do?
- Raw text -