ls output
David Henderson
dhenderson at digital-pipe.com
Fri May 13 13:27:21 UTC 2011
On 05/12/2011 04:31 PM, Harald Becker wrote:
> Hallo David!
>
>> I'm not sure how much it would increase the size of BB, ...
> I can't tell that either, without looking for details of implementation.
>
>> but I wouldn't think much since the 'ls' command already processes
>> regex's. Something like this in bash/perl would take a few lines at best
> In bash/perl ... you can't compare C code increasing only based on
> simplicity of functionality in script languages like bash/perl ... I
> expect the increasing of code size not to be so minimalistic ... that
> is, we need to ask if required.
>
But isn't some/most of the code required to process this task already
part of the busybox binary (hence part of it's reduction in size over
full blown utilities)?
>> - although I'm not a C or C++ programmer, ...
> ... and that's the reason why.
>
And that's the reason it was included. :)
>> I just thought it would be a nice addition to make for more complex
>> searches without relying on another binary. :)
> Another binary? ... find is an applet of busybox, and even with the
> restricted version of Busybox you get a massive selection of
> functionality, especially for searches (most likely cases where you use
> "ls -1") ... without another binary, as it is already part of Busybox
> (all those applets share the same code and usually get not duplicated
> into memory).
opps - applet is what I meant :) I've been working on other projects too
and busybox is the only one where applet is the appropriate term.
> ... if a need for extension of search selection arises, it would
> probably be wise to extend the functionality of find. (IMHO)
>
>
Again, since they share the same code base, wouldn't it be trivial to
add that bit of code to 'ls'?
Dave
More information about the busybox
mailing list