On 10/09/2021 22:54, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
"Harald van Dijk via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
<austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote:
Either the distinction matters or it doesn't. If it matters, then it was
important to switch back to talk about what O?uz wrote. If it doesn't
matter, then it should not be a problem that I switched back to talk
about what O?uz wrote. It may be that the distinction doesn't matter. If
it helps with understanding, I will answer again based on the integer
version.
O?uz's suggested output, translated to the integer version, would be
(please correct me if I am misstating anything here):
$ printf '%3$d %1$d\n' 1 2 3 4
0 1
0 3
This is not correct, the correct output is:
printf '%3$d %1$d\n' 1 2 3 4
3 1
0 4
so please read the documentation, e.g. from:
http://schilytools.sourceforge.net/man/man1/bosh.1.html
play a bit with that feature and rethink what you wrote...
I never said that output was what any implementation of printf would
generate, I said that that output was what Oğuz suggested printf
_should_ generate. That's why I wrote "Oğuz's suggested output" in that
message. You, meanwhile, said that what Oğuz suggested printf _should_
do is what it _did_ do. That is utterly false and you still have not
retracted that false claim.
I do not know whether you actually believe what you are writing at this
point. I do know there is no point in continuing this because you are
misinterpreting them to such a point that communication just completely
breaks down. I do not know whether this is intentional. If it is, it is
an outright form of dishonesty. I really hope it is not. If it is not,
it is still a giant waste of everyone's time. Either way, shame on you.
