Stephane Chazelas wrote:
|2017-05-17 14:00:21 +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso:
|[...]
|>|BTW, U+00A0, should really not be a [:blank:] or [:space:].
|>|That's the whole point of that "non-breaking space" character.
|>
|> It is clearly defined as whitespace in Unicode and thus ISO, at
|> least once
2017-05-17 14:00:21 +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso:
[...]
> |BTW, U+00A0, should really not be a [:blank:] or [:space:].
> |That's the whole point of that "non-breaking space" character.
>
> It is clearly defined as whitespace in Unicode and thus ISO, at
> least once i last worked with the Unicode tabl
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
|2017-05-17 09:37:31 +0100, Geoff Clare:
|[...]
|> That would appear to be a bug in the standard, as it doesn't match
|> existing practice in any of the shells I tried (with a UTF-8 locale):
|>
|> $ printf 'echo\u00a0foo\n' | grep '[[:blank:]]'
|> echo foo
|> $ pr
2017-05-17 10:21:13 +0100, Stephane Chazelas:
[...]
> bash has a similar issue. It treats [:blank:] as delimiters
> only in locales with single-byte charsets. See
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2014-10/msg00098.html
> and the whole discussion there.
[...]
https://www.mail-archive.co
2017-05-17 09:37:31 +0100, Geoff Clare:
[...]
> That would appear to be a bug in the standard, as it doesn't match
> existing practice in any of the shells I tried (with a UTF-8 locale):
>
> $ printf 'echo\u00a0foo\n' | grep '[[:blank:]]'
> echo foo
> $ printf 'echo\u00a0foo\n' | sh
Chet Ramey wrote, on 16 May 2017:
>
> On 5/16/17 6:33 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> > If we start having shell parsing differently depending on what locale the
> > user happens to be using, we may as well all give up now, and go find
> > something else to do.
>
> Too late:
>
> http://pubs.opengroup
