From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2580 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 14:45:51 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 14:45:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 3294 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 14:45:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 18199 Received: (qmail 3286 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 14:45:41 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 14:45:41 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [66.70.28.20] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 14:45:40 -0000 Received: from DervishD.pleyades.net (212.Red-80-35-44.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.35.44.212]) by [66.70.28.21] (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h15Ejfb13069 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:45:41 +0100 Received: from raul@pleyades.net by DervishD.pleyades.net with local (Exim MTA 2.05) id <18gQkC-000055-00>; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:41:44 +0100 Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:41:44 +0100 From: DervishD To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: printf and POSIX compliance Message-ID: <20030205144144.GD234@DervishD> Mail-Followup-To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk References: <20030204164425.A192@pcchazelas.free.fr> <20030204182611.GE18261@DervishD> <20030205141011.A705@pcchazelas.free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20030205141011.A705@pcchazelas.free.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Organization: Pleyades User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Hi Stephane :) > > That is Single Unix Specification, not POSIX, am I wrong? > I must confess I've not understood all of this imbroglio of > obscure specifications Neither have I O:)) And the number of specs seems to grow on a daily basis... > > > Note that neither bash nor GNU printf behave better. > [...] > > BTW, as far as I know, zsh has not a printf builtin. > I was actually speaking of printf builtin in zsh developpement > series (4.1.1-dev-x), aka "print -f" Oh, sorry, didn't know that the development branch of zsh implements a printf builtin O:) > So, that doesn't really matter if zsh printf adopts one syntax or > another, but it may be wise to pick the one that is more likely to > eventually become standard one day. Maybe the bash behavior (\351 > and \0351 both expanding to é) is the least worst... I think that is better to stuck to an standard, being that POSIX or SuS. Since SuS gives its spec freely (I mean, you don't have to pay for giving free software to the community that is SuS compliant) I prefer that standard over the rest, but obviously is a personal choice ;))) Being bash-compliant is, IMHO, just a way of standardize bad behaviour. If GNU printf is broken, non POSIX or SuS compliant, then submit a bug report. The shellutils developers care about standard compliance, I've submitted such bug reports in the past. Bye :) Raśl