Re: sort -c/C and last-resort sorting

2021-07-05 Thread Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
"Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group" wrote: > Date:Mon, 05 Jul 2021 18:04:59 +0200 > From:"Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group" > > Message-ID: <20210705160459.e40cs%sch...@schily.net> > > | How do you believe is -S related to what

Re: sort -c/C and last-resort sorting

2021-07-05 Thread Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Date:Mon, 05 Jul 2021 18:04:59 +0200 From:"Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group" Message-ID: <20210705160459.e40cs%sch...@schily.net> | How do you believe is -S related to what -s could probably do? The -S under discussion is simply !-s (as -s is

Re: sort -c/C and last-resort sorting

2021-07-05 Thread Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
"Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group" wrote: > That's even more justification for adding -s to the standard > though so people can at least choose to get a stable sort > portably. -S could probably be added as well, but I don't think > it wise to make the default behaviour

Re: sort -c/C and last-resort sorting

2021-07-05 Thread Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Date:Mon, 5 Jul 2021 09:33:32 +0100 From:"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group" Message-ID: <20210705083332.GA21700@localhost> | If we add both -s and -S and specify "last one wins", That's what the NetBSD implementation does. kre

Re: utilities and write errors

2021-07-05 Thread Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Robert Elz wrote, on 05 Jul 2021: > > Date:Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:45:40 +0100 > From:"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group" > > Message-ID: <20210701104540.GA4023@localhost> > > | Because it is a precondition of this discussion. I.e. what we are > |

Re: utilities and write errors

2021-07-05 Thread Vincent Lefevre via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On 2021-07-05 13:53:45 +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > Once again, buffering exists and is known to exist - and what's more, > the standard actually *required* stdout to be buffered whenever it is > not associated with a terminal (which is no big surprise, as

Re: sort -c/C and last-resort sorting

2021-07-05 Thread Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 04 Jul 2021: > > That's even more justification for adding -s to the standard > though so people can at least choose to get a stable sort > portably. -S could probably be added as well, but I don't think > it wise to make the default behaviour unspecified. If we add

Re: utilities and write errors

2021-07-05 Thread Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Date:Mon, 5 Jul 2021 00:41:23 +0100 From:Harald van Dijk Message-ID: <88337ff9-c726-c563-4d4f-3fa74d964...@gigawatt.nl> | I was looking at the HTML version. Aside from its search function, you | can find it there under System Interfaces (top left frame), then