// If the behavior is intended why not say so upfront and
// remove the BUGS section (or rename it to something else).
In Plan 9, the BUGS section is not really all about "bugs". This is
arguably unfortunate, but it's the way the system is. You might
check out
http://doc.cat-v.org/plan_9/misc/man_page_writing_howto
In particular, the section on BUGS says:
The BUGS section briefly lists shortcomings or other
‘‘gotchas’’ that the user should be aware of when using
the program. This is the place to mention things which
are unsatisfactory or tricky about the program, even if it
is not clear that they are bugs. Mentioning something in
a BUGS section does not imply a commitment to fix it.
Whenever you see the BUGS section in a Plan 9 man page,
mentally replace it with NOTE or BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS BIT.
Changing the language in the actual description to be more
clear is largely an independent issue, and seems worthwhile.
// plan9 strings are not just ASCII anymore so the 'a' prefix
// makes less sense now!
More logically consistent, but I suspect originally this was a
concession to porting existing unix code, or a bad mental
habbit. At this point, it seems unreasonable to change.
Anthony
