I realize a lot of folks consider the context switch to paper to also be jarring, but this is why I like analog reference works. I remember roughly how far in to the book the table of all those obscure flags are, and the book more or less falls open to it, because I've been there before.
Well, knowing that `[` is the same as `test`, you can `man test` to see the available options.
Personally, I avoid `[` for `[[`. To see the options for that, I do `man bash`, then type `/\[\[`, hit Enter, and press `n` a few times until the list of options appears. It's in the "CONDITIONAL EXPRESSIONS" section.
Almost everything shown in this site is available in bash's manpage.
GNU's `ls` has most of its documentation in `info ls`.
There's no need to turn to websites. All documentation is available locally from the command line. If anything, it just requires a bit of skill in searching. With `man`/`less`, you search with `/` like I showed; in `info`, you search with <Ctrl-s>.
Also, `command [ --help` does work. It's not the same as the built-in, but it should be mostly the same.
Heh, as a person who mostly writes Clojure code, I always find the context switch to go to the command line jarring and really really love tools that give me the documentation straight in my editor!
They did a 10% implementation of what would be good:
But it doesn't know how to dive into [ and show docs for the operators, i.e., "help [ -e" doesn't work. The [ documentation also doesn't tell you what options are available, and of course [ doesn't implement --help (but, of course, /bin/[ does. And people say computers are hard to use! Psh!).So anyway, if this could all be fixed with a command-line utility, that would be wonderful. It is likely that if I ever need to remember what [ -e does, I'll "man [" or failing that "info bash" or failing that, give up and write the program in go so at least I can work from some documentation.