Exa: Incompatible argument: -t

[nedludd]

ls -lrt give you a sorted list with the oldest file last.

The same arguments in exa produces this:

$ exa -lrt
Argument to option 't' missing.

What exa arguments will produce the same result?

[dieggsy]

I believe you want exa -lrs modified or exa -lr --sort=modified

As for "short" sort options, I had mentioned them here: #144, but the issue was closed...

[nedludd]

OK, gotta retrain the muscle memory then ;-)

[ogham]

In #284 (out soon) I added a hint for this case, since it's such a common ls command. The hint looks like this, and refers to newest, which is modified backwards:

(ignore that it's called dexa, that's an alias)

[Frederik-Baetens]

Will there be any improvement to this, or do i just have to alias exa -ltr to exa -ls modified, since I use the command quite a bit.

Also why is the sorting order reversed of ls -lt compared to exa -ls modified? with the ls command putting the newest items at the top, and the exa command putting the newest items at the bottom?

[RandomErrorMessage]

Please default -t to modified,this is pretty important imo. I've been typing out "ls -lhtra" for like 16 years and I can't change now.

[Frederik-Baetens]

Now you can do exa -lsnew and exa -lsold and that works pretty well i find

[RandomErrorMessage]

Whatever, I'll be going back to standard ls. There's no need to break everyone's pre-existing workflow, and force people to switch between syntax while on different systems where exa is not installed. Expect this to be a common and repeated request by many individuals. I've seen no one explain why compatibility must be broken.

Good luck with your project, everyone.

[Frederik-Baetens]

While i will be sticking with exa i'm also curious about the design decisions. Mixing single letter arguments and words, like we do here with l and new is quite novel to me.