[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25540: notice issue in expand -- doesn't allow for expressing tabsiz
bug#25540: notice issue in expand -- doesn't allow for expressing tabsize value in tabstop(s)
Thu, 26 Jan 2017 12:27:27 +0100
> Am 26.01.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Pádraig Brady <address@hidden>:
> On 26/01/17 10:26, Reuti wrote:
>>> Am 26.01.2017 um 05:29 schrieb L A Walsh <address@hidden>:
>>> In programs that take tabstops, as an alternative to a tabsize, I've always
>>> seen tabs beyond the end of the list taken as equal to the highest tab-stop
>>> difference. So for a tabsize=8, a tabset of 1,9 would be equivalent -- with
>>> tabs above "9" being "9-1" or every 8th column above 9.
>>> Otherwise you have no way of expression all tabs on a line that stretches
>>> out to
>>> "???" 160? 240? what? other than to enumerate tabstops to infinity.
>>> If they want to limit tabstops above the last to size "1", they can use
>>> something like 1,9,10. How else can one specify tabs beyond the last
>>> for a size other than "1"?
>>> Could this be changed/fixed?
>> For now the behavior is like specified on the info page: "[…] and replace
>> any tabs beyond the last tab stop given with single spaces." To avoid that
>> this gets broken, I would suggest to use a modified syntax like 1,9,30,34,/4
>> for using a width of 4 beyond 34.
> I like that. Explicit and extensible.
> An alternative could be: --tabs=1,9,30,34,+4 ?
Sure, this works too. In fact: I had this also in mind first, but with the
extension to specify a multiplicator for the width I found "2+4" misleading and
a slash more appropriate.
>> This could even be expanded to: -t 2/4,120,4/5,/9
>> Two times a width of 4, a fixed 120, four times a width of 5 and all
>> remaining have a width of 9 (could also be */9 instead of /9).
> That might be overkill.
> It wouldn't provide extra functionality, only a shortcut,
> and a very rarely used one at that.
>> While we are on this:
>> expand -t 5,15,25,35 file
>> expand -t 5,15,25,,,,35 file
>> are AFAICS both the same. I would expect the second to behave different
>> (using a space for the three tabs which have no value).
> I'm not sure we should assume empty = 1.
> Note FreeBSD rejects this format:
> $ seq 8 | paste -s -d$'\t' - | expand -t1,,2
> expand: bad tab stop spec
> One might consider and empty value after a comma to mean take the previous
> tab stop width,
> and that would be a partially backwards compat way to provide the original
> request, i.e.:
> expand -t 1,9,,
> However that seems a bit hacky and non obvious.
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail