[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gawk option processing
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: gawk option processing |
Date: |
Tue, 21 May 2002 09:20:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
Hallo,
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 10:35:45AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > From: Stepan Kasal <address@hidden>
> > the following two should also be:
> > $ awk --traditional -F\t 'BEGIN{$0="atc\tha";print $2}'
> > ha
> > $ awk -F\t --traditional 'BEGIN{$0="atc\tha";print $2}'
> > c ha
> > But, as you see, they are not.
>
> Thanks for sending in that bug report. I'd like to second the motion
> that the order of options should not matter, as POSIX requires this
> behavior (for the POSIX options anyway) -- it's part of the Utility
> Syntax Guidelines. It's a good idea for this rule to apply to all
> options, not just the POSIX-required ones.
well, the rule generally holds, as shown above. But there are obvious
exceptions, at least with gawk, since -v and -F options are in fact bits
of program, not options (not speaking about -f options which are in fact
include directives).
But the bug report was purely artificial, resulting from detiled reading
of the code, not from user experience. (Everyone using --traditional -Ft
instead of 'BEGIN{FS="\t"}' is strange.) The purpose of the bug report
was to demonstrate that the old implementation strategy is too fragile.
Regards,
Stepan Kasal