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

[Aharon Robbins]

Hi Andy.

> > 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.

Good point.

> 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?

Can you investigate this a bit?  I'm up to my ears in Real Life,
and you're familiar enough w/the code that you should be able to see
what's really going on.  John and Pat did that stuff back during the
4.0 development and I haven't really delved into it.

And if you want to take my doc patch and finish it off, I'd be
doubly grateful...

Much thanks,

Arnold