Re: might be a bug in gawk

[Aharon Robbins]

> Note that this comment is documenting that the field width isn't
> _applied_, not that it isn't accepted, so AFAICT my comments remain
> appropriate. It's explaining why you didn't get a % right-justified in a
> 29-width field.
>
> But at any rate C99 is not the relevant standard for awk printf
> behavior; SUS is, and SUS doesn't define it in terms of the C function,
> but in terms of its own printf-like "format specification"; I don't see
> any license for field width to be ignored for the % specifier. Arguably,
> the field width should be applied (but I'm not recommending that change,
> just noting that it could be more conforming).

I haven't looked at the text of SUS yet.  In any case, I don't plan to
change the current behavior.

Thanks,

Arnold