Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > arn...@skeeve.com wrote: > > Can you elaborate? Is it mainly in the LIBC part of the code that it's > > not implemented correctly? > > Sorry, I haven't followed that part of the code closely. There are some > FIXMEs > there, as I recall. I'd be surprised if RRI were fully implemented even in > the > !_LIBC part of the code.
I find this statement surprising and discouraging. I would like to see a test case to prove/disprove it one way or the other, particularly for multibyte locales. As the original RRI code came from gawk, I am pretty sure that the ! _LIBC part of the code does get it right. Or at least did in my version. Thanks, Arnold
