On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Joerg Schilling
<joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> James Youngman <j...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>
>> > I am sure that you know that the existence of --something in many GNU
>> > tools did
>> > already result in many non-portable scripts and there is no man page that
>> > warns
>> > of using --something.
>>
>> CSSC doesn't do that though.
>
> SCCS and similar tools are usually used by more experienced people who are
> expecte to have more knowledge on portability than a typical user of "gls".
>
>
>> > If you don't include code in CSSC that automatically switches to binary
>> > (encoded) mode, why did you write this test?
>>
>> I do include such code.
>
> Then I don't understand the purpose of you test as it seems to verify that
> there is no such automatic switch to binary mode.
That is not what the test verifies, as I have repeatedly tried to
explain, and as the code clearly shows. I don't know how to explain
this more clearly. Perhaps if you take a look at the code again:
if $TESTING_CSSC
then
## Real SCCS fails on these inputs:-
test_bin fb10 "foo" # no newline at end of file.
test_ascii fa11 "x\000y\n" # ASCII NUL.
else
echo "Some tests skipped (since SCCS fails them but CSSC should pass)"
fi
> Well, do you agree that -n and -i should be interpreted as equivalent and that
> you should accept "admin -r2 -n s.foo"?
I think that's what POSIX says, at the moment.
James.
_______________________________________________
cssc-users mailing list
cssc-users@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/cssc-users
