That's true, but I think that the expected output would be for sort to assume the data is comma-delimited, because -t, was specified in the command, and then to sort on each field.
In your example, they actually result in the same thing. In this case, I think it's only when the comma character doesn't make sense as a numeric that the results would be different. In other words, in an example in which a comma is actually *meant* to be both a field-separator and a numeric character and the comma's are well-placed, then the results will agree. If however, the comma does not make sense as a numeric, as in the following example, then the results would be different and would not make sense. a,1,11 bb,4,321 c,1,1111 If any of the above is wrong, it's only because I know very little about unix. Cheers, Gabe -- gabriel gaster On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > You could have data like: > > a,1,234 > bb,4,321 > c,1,111 > > If you wanted to sort by those grouped numbers you'd need to honor the , in > the locale > and use sort -t, -k2n > > Perhaps this is something worth warning about in sort --debug. > I.E. numeric specified and -t[$group|$decimal] specified, > but I'm inclined to think it's not worth it. > > cheers, > Pádraig.
