on linux it is sorted, but not on windows. for cross-platform compatibility, might want to sort it on windows.
bjarthur
All 5 comments
I would propose adding a sort::Bool=true keyword argument to readdir so that people can opt out of the sorting operation if they really need to. Defaulting to true seems reasonable because directories do not tend to have that many entries in them and it's easy to write code assuming that this will always be sorted on one platform and have it break on another. With the opt-out keyword, at least you know that what you're getting won't necessarily be sorted.
StefanKarpinski
on 16 Nov 2017
I will prepare a PR if no one minds.
crstnbr
on 20 Nov 2017
"on linux it is sorted, but not on windows"
Yes, e.g. for ls, but besides asking for differents sorts, e.g. by time, I also see:
"-U do not sort; list entries in directory order"
In case that's the order actually stored in, and tiny bit faster, you could default to it, with sort=false?
PallHaraldsson
on 4 Dec 2017
"Huge bug uncovered ... because different operating systems sort files differently and the published scripts don鈥檛 handle it well." !!!
bjarthur
on 16 Oct 2019
馃憤 That story pretty much demolished the somewhat weak (imo) arguments against doing this.
StefanKarpinski
on 16 Oct 2019
Related issues
tkoolen
路
3Comments
omus
路
3Comments
manor
路
3Comments
TotalVerb
路
3Comments
Keno
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
I would propose adding a
sort::Bool=truekeyword argument toreaddirso that people can opt out of the sorting operation if they really need to. Defaulting to true seems reasonable because directories do not tend to have that many entries in them and it's easy to write code assuming that this will always be sorted on one platform and have it break on another. With the opt-out keyword, at least you know that what you're getting won't necessarily be sorted.