> But I'll be damned if I don't use `ls -lah` because I am a human, not a robot. I'd prefer that '-lah' be an external composable modifier. 'ls -la' looks like

> But I'll be damned if I don't use `ls -lah` because I am a human, not a robot. I'd prefer that '-lah' be an external composable modifier. 'ls -la' looks like it is, I think, because it tries to create simpler common case, for the expense of that case be more specialized. Since, as somebody decided, 'ls' by default contain only some information available, one presumably needs 'ls -zz' (a made up option) which would produce all information available, and a composed to it filter which would select what is needed at the time. If composability would be really cheap, we wouldn't need that special '-zz' option. We can even consider an option as a composition of additional operation over generic 'ls' behavior - in this case we wouldn't need the shell 'pipe' operator, and syntax of shell statements would become closer to Haskell's. For example, 'cat' could do something generic by itself, while 'cat note.txt' would be considered a composition of 'cat' and 'note.txt' which creates a specialized behavior (which sort of reminds Forth).