Re: Human readable sort

[Pádraig Brady]

Eric Blake wrote:
> Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com> writes:
> 
>> Looks like your copyright assignment papers went through.
>> Attached is the latest patch rebased against master
>> and with a couple of extra whitespace fixups.
>>
> 
> +static int
> +find_unit_order (const char *number)
> +{
> +  static const char orders [UCHAR_LIM] = {
> +    ['K']=1, ['M']=2, ['G']=3, ['T']=4, ['P']=5, ['E']=6, ['Z']=7, ['Y']=8,
> +    ['k']=1,
> +  }; 
> 
> This assumes more of C99 than we have previously required.  Are we sure that 
> all compilers out there will support this syntax?

Designated Initializers were a GNU C C89 extension.
So I thought they were both elegant and not too new.
I've not got access to older machines to test unfortunately.

> 
> Also, your tests only cover 'sort -h'; what about covering 'sort -k1,1h'?
> 

OK I'll flesh out the tests a bit.

cheers,
Pádraig.