Re: "ls" output like find ... -print0 anyhow ???

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>]

On Jan 26,  8:59pm, Phil Pennock wrote:
}
} I'd use the print builtin of zsh, so that there are no argv length
} limitations, combined with zsh's very powerful glob operators.

Meino mentioned in private email that he has particular reasons for
using "ls" instead of "find".  If the options of "ls" are important
(rather than just the file names) and you don't need to worry too
much about CPU consumption:

  print -N -- **/*(.e:'reply=("$(ls -l "$REPLY")")':) | xargs -0 ...

That's going to run "ls -l" once for each plain file (.) below the
current directory, so it's a lot more process-intensive than a single
"ls -lR", and it may not sort in the order you expect, but it will
give you "ls" output with $'\0'-terminated lines.