I changed my mind about which way round sorting by “newest” or by “oldest” should actually go. If you’re listing a large directory, you see the last lines of the output first, so these files should be the ones with the largest whatever the sort field is. It’s about sorting *last*, not sorting *first*. Sorting by size wouldn’t say “sorts smallest files first”, it would say “sorts largest files last”. Right?
Also, add a new suggestion that warns against “ls -lt”.
Raised in #243 and #284. exa isn’t able to override the -t option like this, so the least it can do is detect that case (which is going to be an error case anyway) and show a suggestion.
