Re: (#i) curiosity

On 2026-04-09 13:20, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>
>
> So what happens if you run ls with no arguments? It displays the 
> current directory. And if you specify the -d option telling it to list 
> directories themselves instead of their contents, that looks like ".".
Bingo!  I get it: '(#i)zzz' returns nothing to 'ls' and just as you say, 
I end up with the directory.  Whereas 'zzz' returns 'zzz' to 'ls' which 
it dutifully reports as not existing, and because it's not a glob, 
'nullglob' doesn't interfere.   Makes me wonder ... would 'nullfile' be 
a thing?  Same logic but pertaining to files.
>
> Really, I don't know why you're using ls to play with globs; it just 
> confuses the issue. Just use echo to see what's there. You only need 
> to pass the names to ls if you want more information than that the 
> files exist, like whether it's a directory or how big it is or the 
> permissions or something.
Yeah, I do want an 'ls' listing, my wrapper just massages the way it 
works and how it displays:

1 /aWorking/Zsh/Source/Wk 4 % l test\ *

LISTING of "test\ *": All file types, INsensitive. Sorting oldest on top 
by: Mod. Time:

  0 [26-04-04--09:00] test a
  0 [26-04-04--09:03] test b

Items found: 2
Total bytes in directory "/aWorking/Zsh/Source/Wk": 1.9M
Total including subdirs: 69M

... I cut out all the permissions stuff cuz I own my whole computer, I 
have a preferred time string, I filter directories in or out ... and so 
on.  But it's 'ls' under the hood.

So Mark, should that option be on or off as a basic configuration? I 
know there are some options that are almost always used and others that 
are only for exotic situations.


>
> -- 
> Mark J. Reed <[email protected]>