Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

[Daniel Barclay <daniel@fgm.com>]

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> > > > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date
> > > > > format is used. Let me see...
> > > > >
> > > > > -rwx------ 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg
> > > > > -rwx------ 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How
> > > > > (I'd really like to know)?
> > > >
> > > > The third of May, because it's recognizable as the ISO date/time
> > > > format ....
> > >
> > > 03-05-2010
> > >
> > > There's no way on Earth to *know* whether this date is May 3rd or
> > > March 5th.
> >
> > So? (What's your point? We were talking about the ISO date format,
> > the ISO date format when time fields are present, and, earlier,
> > common local data formats. Your example clearly isn't one of the
> > first two. Are you claiming that some local data format uses that
> > component order _and_ uses hyphens?)
>
> I interpreted Andrei's email as referring to the ambiguities in the file 
> *names* (like 03052010065.jpg), not the fs timestamps.

Okay, gotcha now.  Yes, I was addressing the ls timestamp output.

Daniel






--