From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from math.gatech.edu (euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by werple.net.au (8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id GAA12339 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 06:10:08 +1100 (EST) Received: by math.gatech.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03792; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 13:35:14 -0500 Old-Return-Path: Resent-Date: 13 Nov 1995 10:29:51 -0800 Old-Return-Path: Sender: steve@miranova.com To: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: <> doesn't sort numerically X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/ From: steve@miranova.com (Steven L. Baur) Date: 13 Nov 1995 10:29:51 -0800 In-Reply-To: P.Stephenson@swansea.ac.uk's message of 13 Nov 1995 00:14:15 -0800 Message-Id: Organization: Miranova Systems, Inc. X-Mailer: September Gnus v0.12 Resent-Message-Id: <"j8R1w3.0.Kv.4wufm"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/132 X-Loop: zsh-users@math.gatech.edu X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu >>>>> "Peter" == P Stephenson writes: Peter> steve@miranova.com wrote: >> (zsh 2.6 beta 9). >> >> I've noticed that <> doesn't appear to order the expanded files >> in numeric order. Eg. <> in a directory containing 1 2 4 9 24 >> will expand as 1 2 24 4 9. This isn't completely useful >> behavior. The only workaround I've found is to use a >> succession of ? ?? ???, etc. Peter> You have to set the option `numericglobsort'. This Peter> actually means you get the same result however the numbers Peter> are matched, with * or <> for example. I think this was Peter> some unusual attempt at consistency. O.K. Thanks. The version of the manual I was looking at, made no mention of this option in the globbing section. Peter> Perhaps it's actually a bit counterintuitive. Would it Peter> actually be more sensible for <> always to produce globbing Peter> in numerical order? I haven't looked at the source but Peter> presumably it's not too hard. Yes. Especially since a semi-clueless person could always bruteforce the current behavior with $(ls <>). Although, I suppose, the same could be said for $(sort -n <>). Thank you Thorsten (private mail), and Peter for responding. -- steve@miranova.com baur