[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue has a resolution that has been APPLIED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned T

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001277. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue has been UPDATED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: ===

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue has been UPDATED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: ===

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue NEEDS AN INTERPRETATION. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 09 May 2018: > > 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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

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

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

Apparently, some are reading that as since the \55 is not encoded directly as a the user's intent was to treat it as a literal (or any character specified this way), not ERE operator, as another means of specifying '\-' in this case. An implementation that doesn't use regcomp may only permit '-

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue is UNDER REVIEW. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 04 May 2018: > > 2018-05-04 09:30:56 +0100, Geoff Clare: > [...] > > > That's the point: we should allow \ to be an escaping operator > > > inside brackets. In awk and anything else. Technically, that > > > means a portable application has to double the \ inside > > > b

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

2018-05-04 09:30:56 +0100, Geoff Clare: [...] > > That's the point: we should allow \ to be an escaping operator > > inside brackets. In awk and anything else. Technically, that > > means a portable application has to double the \ inside > > brackets. > > The point of awk's extra level of \ interp

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 03 May 2018: > > 2018-05-03 17:38:16 +0100, Geoff Clare: > [...] > > > Does that mean that: > > > > > > awk '/[\]]/' > > > > > > is to match on "\]" and not on "]" (like for grep -E '[\]]')? > > > > As things stand, since "\]" is not in the table above, it is covered

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

2018-05-03 17:38:16 +0100, Geoff Clare: [...] > > Does that mean that: > > > > awk '/[\]]/' > > > > is to match on "\]" and not on "]" (like for grep -E '[\]]')? > > As things stand, since "\]" is not in the table above, it is covered > by the "\c" catchall (last row of the table) which says the

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

Stephane CHAZELAS wrote, on 03 May 2018: > > 2018-05-03 15:54:58 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker: > [...] > > On page 2492 line 80144 section awk, add two new rows to the table: > > \., \[, \(, \*, \+, | A character followed by a character | In > > the lexical token ERE, the sequence > > \?, \{,

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

2018-05-03 15:54:58 +, Austin Group Bug Tracker: [...] > On page 2492 line 80144 section awk, add two new rows to the table: > \., \[, \(, \*, \+, | A character followed by a character | In > the lexical token ERE, the sequence > \?, \{, \|, \^, \$ | that has a special meaning in EREs (see

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue NEEDS AN INTERPRETATION. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: =

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001105]: problems with backslashes in awk strings and EREs

The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1105 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To: ==