Show HN: Lq – Alternative to Ls
github.comWhat I liked:
- Nice output layout.
- Separated directories, files, directory links and file links.
- Full path output.
- Count of objects inside directories.
What would be good:
- Accept filenames as arguments (just like directory is already supported).
- Add an option --regex, for powerful filtering (like egrep)
- Add an option --recursive and --ignore (or --exclude), allowing the user to make recursive listing while ignoring some directories.
Keep up the nice work. Thanks!
Not sure what you mean about filenames as arguments, how would a filename be listed?
Added regex support for --filter. For instance --filter=re:\\d+
You mean something like what tree displays? Or just to count the items in the directory?
> Not sure what you mean about filenames as arguments, how would a filename be listed?
Just the name of the file, like ls. Typing lq file.txt and display nothing looks like the file doesn't exist.
> Added regex support for --filter. For instance --filter=re:\\d+
God, you are fast! Thank you!
> You mean something like what tree displays? Or just to count the items in the directory?
Forget this silly thing. I tried using find and worked perfectly:
$ find . -type d -exec echo -e "\n$ lq {}" \; -exec lq {} \;
Looks cool! Checking it out now. I have a growing interest in Nim, how do you like the language?
One suggestion I have is to output in justified columns for the non-list output, like how ls does.. gives me a headache to look at everything jumbled together.
And one final note, having short hand command flags is necessary if you want a useful command line tool. Like '-s' short for '--salad' or '-c' for '--count' etc
Seems making the column view is a bit tricky right now. But if I manage to do it i'll release it as a nim library itself and use it in the program.
Added alt support. -s for --salad -c for --count etc. Not all commands have an alt right now.
Oh and I'm certainly liking Nim quite a bit. Recommended.
The images in the repo should be accompanied by descriptions of what we can see. It is not obvious for most of them.
I say 'should', but that is pretty relative of course. The don't have to, but in order for most people, or at least me, to understand them, they should.
Just added some short descriptions to each image to make it more clear.
Cool, thanks.
I must say though that 'This is a preset that turns on certain options to make it look like this.' is not much of an improvement.