Re: tree with dir size

[David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>]

On Mon 03 Jun 2024 at 10:32:16 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> I'll also throw in one last piece of information because if I don't,
> someone else is likely to do it, without a good explanation.
> Syntactically, the body of a shell function doesn't have to be enclosed
> in curly braces.  The body can be any compound command, and a curly-brace
> command group is just one example of a compound command.  A subshell is
> another example.  So, it could also be written this way:
> 
> duhs() (
>     shopt -s dotglob
>     printf '%s\0' "${1:-.}"/*/ | xargs -0 du -sh
> )
> 
> I'm not personally fond of this.  It's extremely easy to overlook
> the fact that the curly braces have been replaced with parentheses,
> especially in certain fonts.  Nevertheless, some people like this.

I guess minimalists would make a one-liner out of that.
Myself, I prefer verbosity, and the ability to search and find
all my functions with   /function.*{$   in less. For example,
I write what is probably my most trivial function in .bashrc as:

  function _Cat_ {
      cat
  }

rather than:

  _Cat_() { cat; }

Cheers,
David.