Re: gensub() indirectly called with more than 2 parameters: produce a strange error

[Denis Shirokov]

  I don’t want another programming language. I’m a fan :)

Thanx
Denis

ср, 22 янв. 2025 г. в 18:32, <arnold@skeeve.com>:

> Denis Shirokov <cosmogen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > i can somewhat understand why sub() and gsub() might be limited during
> > indirect calling (since they modify the contents of variables without an
> > assignment operation),
>
> That's correct.
>
> > but I absolutely don’t understand why gensub() falls
> > under the same criteria. I see no logical connection.
>
> As I just wrote, it was a bug. I included the patch and I have already
> pushed the fix to Git.
>
> > The same issue came up in a recent discussion about the behavior of the
> > length() function:
> > Why does length(A) make A unassigned instead of leaving it untyped?
> > Tradition? Guilty!
>
> Yes, I cannot break old programs.
>
>  By introducing, starting from gawk 5.2.2 (according to
> > the documentation), the ability for array elements to *exist* in an array
> > while remaining untyped, you blatantly break compatibility rules. For
> > example, when copying one array into another, old code will most likely
> > recreate the untyped elements in the target array as unassigned. You’re
> not
> > afraid to break tradition and compatibility there, but when it comes to
> > length(), you refer to some kind of tradition...
>
> If you're talking about subarrays, only gawk supports them.  It is very
> difficult having untyped array elements that can be turned into (sub)arrays
> via function calls.  Sometimes there are bugs and/or grey areas, and
> that's the way it is.
>
> As always, you are welcome to pursue a language that might suit you
> better, such as perl or ruby.
>
> Arnold
>