On 14/05/10 22:23, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 05/14/10 06:10, Pádraig Brady wrote: > >> - if ((1 < (key->random + key->numeric + key->general_numeric + >> key->month >> - + key->version + !!key->ignore + key->human_numeric)) >> + if ((1 < (key->random + key_numeric (key) + key->month + >> key->version >> + + !!key->ignore)) > > This change doesn't look right, since it won't catch the error of > specifying both numeric and general_numeric options. Am I missing > something?
Well spotted test/misc/sort::h7 had caught my silliness also > >> sort: obsolescent key formats used. Consider using `-k' > > Something like the following diagnostic would be far more helpful for > users who are not 'sort' experts: > > sort: obsolescent key `+2 -4' used; consider `-k 3,4' instead > > Can you please arrange for that? Yes that would be more useful. I'll have a look. >> + /* The following is too big, but guaranteed to be "big enough". */ >> + char *opts = xstrdup (short_options); > > This unnecessarily copies short_options. Better would be: > char opts[sizeof short_options]; > key_to_opts (key, opts); > F (opts); > > This is a bit faster and is easier to understand (at least, for me). Yes that's better. thanks a lot! Pádraig.
