You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Current Issue: Using eza --tree --level=n currently provides no indication of additional nested levels, which can lead to confusion about directory contents when only a limited depth is shown.
Proposed Solution: Introduce a --indicate-deeper-levels flag to mark directories that have further levels beyond the specified depth. A simple indicator (e.g., ...) would clarify that deeper levels exist, improving clarity without altering the specified --level setting.
Example
Original Folder Structure
.
├── a
└── b
├── c
└── d
└── e
Output of eza --tree --level=1
.
├── a
└── b
Wanted behavior of e.g. eza --tree --level=1 --indicate-deeper-levels
.
├── a
└── b
└── ...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
And honestly, if this could be implemented without a runtime impact on the already pretty slow --tree flag, it may be worth just making this a default, I think we can be that opinionated :p
Current Issue: Using
eza --tree --level=n
currently provides no indication of additional nested levels, which can lead to confusion about directory contents when only a limited depth is shown.Proposed Solution: Introduce a
--indicate-deeper-levels
flag to mark directories that have further levels beyond the specified depth. A simple indicator (e.g., ...) would clarify that deeper levels exist, improving clarity without altering the specified --level setting.Example
Original Folder Structure
Output of
eza --tree --level=1
Wanted behavior of e.g.
eza --tree --level=1 --indicate-deeper-levels
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: