On 2021-07-07 00:48:28 +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group
wrote:
> | > Implementor of what?
> | Of pwd.
>
> Who has no idea whether or not buffering is being used.
When using stdio, the implementor knows that buffering *may* be used.
Thus he needs to call fflush at the
Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:05:20 +0200
> From:"Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
>
> Message-ID: <20210705180520.kgbgk%sch...@schily.net>
>
> | That would be in conflict with long existing practice
>
> Apparently not in
Date:Mon, 5 Jul 2021 10:51:04 +0100
From:"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <20210705095104.GA23845@localhost>
| As I said before, there is nothing in the standard that requires pwd
| to be written in C.
No issue with that,
| Nor
Date:Mon, 05 Jul 2021 20:05:20 +0200
From:"Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <20210705180520.kgbgk%sch...@schily.net>
| That would be in conflict with long existing practice
Apparently not in most versions of sort.
| If you
Joerg Schilling wrote, on 06 Jul 2021:
>
> "Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
> wrote:
>
> > > If you like to disable -s, better use +s
> >
> > That wouldn't be suitable for standardisation as it doesn't follow
> > syntax guideline 4. The standard would need to use a different
"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
> > If you like to disable -s, better use +s
>
> That wouldn't be suitable for standardisation as it doesn't follow
> syntax guideline 4. The standard would need to use a different letter,
> maybe -F for "fully sorted", or -l/-L for
Joerg Schilling wrote, on 05 Jul 2021:
>
> "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:
