Re: [bug-gawk] asort 3rd argument does not work as documented

[Andrew J. Schorr]

Hi Arnold,

On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:22:03PM +0200, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> How does this look as a patch?

This (obviously) looks much better, since it's no longer incorrect. :-).  
Thanks for coming up with a patch. 

In addition to saying that "@unsorted" makes no sense in this context, would it
be helpful to point out that only the "@val_.*" choices are useful?
In other words, the "@ind_.*" and "@unsorted" values should all be avoided.
Particularly when using asorti, one might be tempted to use an argument of
"@ind_.*", but it appears not to work for me.  Or am I confused about this?

Regards,
Andy