[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: might be a bug in gawk
From: |
Aharon Robbins |
Subject: |
Re: might be a bug in gawk |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:05:10 +0300 |
Hi All.
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:28:02 -0700
> From: Micah Cowan <address@hidden>
> To: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
> CC: Dave B <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: might be a bug in gawk
>
> >>> There is no formatting directive that reqires an argument. %28b is
> >>> unknown and %29% is treated the same as %%.
> >> Where is that documented?
> >
> > Nowhere. Both are undefined.
>
> To be pedantic, %29% is not undefined, AFAICT: % is an ordinary
> conversion specifier, and I don't see anything anywhere that says it
> can't take a field width (but neither would I particularly expect
> real-world implementations to behave appropriately with them).
>
> - --
> Micah J. Cowan
> Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer.
> Maintainer of GNU Wget and GNU Teseq
> http://micah.cowan.name/
Here is what's in the gawk code:
case '%':
need_format = FALSE;
/*
* 29 Oct. 2002:
* The C99 standard pages 274 and 279 seem to imply that
* since there's no arg converted, the field width
doesn't
* apply. The code already was that way, but this
* comment documents it, at least in the code.
*/
...
HTH,
Arnold
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, (continued)
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Dave B, 2009/03/25
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Andreas Schwab, 2009/03/25
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Dave B, 2009/03/25
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Andreas Schwab, 2009/03/25
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Micah Cowan, 2009/03/25
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Dave B, 2009/03/26
- Re: might be a bug in gawk, Micah Cowan, 2009/03/25
Re: might be a bug in gawk, Jean-Michel ELYN, 2009/03/26
Re: might be a bug in gawk, Pierre Gaston, 2009/03/26
Re: might be a bug in gawk, Aharon Robbins, 2009/03/27
Re: might be a bug in gawk,
Aharon Robbins <=
Re: might be a bug in gawk, Aharon Robbins, 2009/03/28