why `ls -d .` does not list all dirs, as `ls -d */` does?

CIsForCookies

11/5/22, 1:43 PM

Like it says in the heading, I don't get why the "correct" usage of ls -d should add */ in order for ls to find the directories in my current dir, where adding the trivial . isn't helpful

1 + 1

steeldriver

11/5/22, 1:55 PM

It's the *shell*, not `ls`, that's "finding" directories when you use `*/`

Score:1

Ubuntu

vanadium

11/5/22, 1:47 PM

The -d option lists directories themselves, not their content. If you issue the command ls -d . then it will list the argument, i.e. ., a.k.a. the current directory by its own, rather than listing the contents of the argument, i.e., the files in the current directory.

. represents the current directory. */ matches all directories existing in the current directory.

Try ls -dl . for a more interesting variation of the ls -d . command.

0 + 2

FedKad

11/5/22, 7:50 PM

You can expand your answer by mentioning that the `*` character is "expanded" by the shell into a list of files or directories. Compare it with `ls "*/"`.

vanadium

11/6/22, 7:18 AM

@FedonKadifeli yes, I could, but I do not want to turn this into a bash course. I already indicated that it "matches...".

Elon Musk

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

EN: why `ls -d .` does not list all dirs, as `ls -d */` does?

TH: ทำไม `ls -d .` ไม่แสดงรายการ dirs ทั้งหมดเหมือนที่ `ls -d */` ทำ

RO: de ce `ls -d .` nu listează toate dirurile, așa cum face `ls -d */`?

RU: почему `ls -d .` не перечисляет все каталоги, как это делает `ls -d */`?

VI: tại sao `ls -d .` không liệt kê tất cả các thư mục, giống như `ls -d */`?

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.