2018-05-09 15:07:24 +0100, Geoff Clare:
[...]
> > I don't see the point of "requiring" that $0 ~ "\\f" match a FF.
>
> It's a consequence of the way literal strings are turned into EREs.
> When this happens, backslashes are interpreted twice at the lexical
> level, as stated clearly in the current
Robert Elz wrote, on 09 May 2018:
>
> | In the lexical token ERE when not inside a bracket expression,
> | the sequence shall represent itself. Otherwise undefined.
>
> Does it need to be undefined, or can it just be unspecified?
The existing text says undefined, so we used it in the
Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 09 May 2018:
>
> \ treated specially
> inside bracket expressions in practice is more common than the
> behaviour POSIX specifies where it's not treated specially.
>
> I'm fine that POSIX requires []xyz] to match on ] and [xy-] on -
> and that it's the only portable
2018-05-03 15:54:58 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker:
[...]
> On page 2492 line 80143 section awk, add to the Description
> column:If the digits produce a value greater than octal 377,
> the behavior is undefined.
[...]
A slightly related question. For printf "%c", POSIX says:
} 7. For the c conv
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=901
==
Reported By:rhansen
Assigned To:
===
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=901
==
Reported By:rhansen
Assigned To:
===
A NOTE has been added to this issue.
==
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1071
==
Reported By:nick
Assigned To:
=
2018-05-04 16:10:25 +0100, Geoff Clare:
[...]
> It was a deliberate choice made by the original POSIX.2 developers.
> See XRAT A.9.3.5:
>
> Current practice in awk and lex is to accept escape sequences in
> bracket expressions as per XBD Table 5-1 (on page 121), while the
> normal ERE
Date:Wed, 9 May 2018 09:18:37 +0100
From:Geoff Clare
Message-ID: <20180509081837.GA24339@lt2.masqnet>
| In the lexical token ERE when not inside a bracket expression,
| the sequence shall represent itself. Otherwise undefined.
Does it need to be undefined
Geoff Clare wrote, on 04 May 2018:
>
> Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 04 May 2018:
> >
> > That would not be enough to match the current reality, I'd say
> > \ (\n, \ooo, \b...) at least should
> > be undefined inside bracket expressions.
>
> I'd be okay with that.
Nobody has objected to this solu
10 matches
Mail list logo
