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, 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:
"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
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
"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
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
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
Date:Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:31:06 +0100
From:Stephane Chazelas
Message-ID: <20210704093106.2ce2cyg77f2nm...@chazelas.org>
| That would make is non-compliant then.
s/is/it/ ... and yes, so?
| SUS> When there are multiple key fields, later keys shall be
There was
2021-07-04 15:47:55 +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group:
[...]
> which is the way it should be - if one has taken the trouble to specify
> what parts of the record are the keys for sorting (and -u comparisons)
> then sort should not be gratuitously adding more - that it used to
2021-07-04 15:47:55 +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group:
> Date:Fri, 2 Jul 2021 14:41:50 +0100
> From:"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
>
> Message-ID: <20210702134150.GB16587@localhost>
>
> | I've always assumed that the
Date:Fri, 2 Jul 2021 14:41:50 +0100
From:"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <20210702134150.GB16587@localhost>
| I've always assumed that the intention for -c is to answer the
| question "if I ran this command without -c would the
2021-07-02 15:54:48 +0100, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group:
> Joerg Schilling wrote, on 02 Jul 2021:
> >
> > > > > sort: -:2: disorder: a,a
> > > >
> > > > Try to use the POSIX sort variant to avoid the message.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > I suppose you mean the -C option, which
> >
"Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
> > No, I was referring to /usr/xpg4/bin/sort
>
> That no longer exists in Solaris. If Illumos still has it they
> should probably remove it (or make it a symlink to /usr/bin/sort).
OK, I checked the source and the only difference
Joerg Schilling wrote, on 02 Jul 2021:
>
> > > > sort: -:2: disorder: a,a
> > >
> > > Try to use the POSIX sort variant to avoid the message.
> > [...]
> >
> > I suppose you mean the -C option, which
> > still checks but doesn't output a diagnostics message.
>
> No, I was referring to
Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2021-07-02 14:07:17 +0200, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open
> Group:
> > "Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Is:
> > >
> > > printf '%s\n' a,b a,a | sort -c -t, -k1,1
> > >
> > > Meant to succeed or not?
> >
Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 02 Jul 2021:
>
> btw, it seems to me -C should be referenced in the EXIT STATUS
> section and in the -u description like for -c.
Yes, also in STDOUT.
--
Geoff Clare
The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England
2021-07-02 14:07:17 +0200, Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group:
> "Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
> wrote:
>
> > Is:
> >
> > printf '%s\n' a,b a,a | sort -c -t, -k1,1
> >
> > Meant to succeed or not?
> >
> > It fails in GNU, busybox, OpenBSD,
Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 02 Jul 2021:
>
> Is:
>
> printf '%s\n' a,b a,a | sort -c -t, -k1,1
>
> Meant to succeed or not?
>
> It fails in GNU, busybox, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, though with a
> confusing:
>
> sort: -:2: disorder: a,a
>
> diagnostic and succeeds in NetBSD.
>
> It succeeds
"Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
wrote:
> Is:
>
> printf '%s\n' a,b a,a | sort -c -t, -k1,1
>
> Meant to succeed or not?
>
> It fails in GNU, busybox, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, though with a
> confusing:
>
> sort: -:2: disorder: a,a
Try to use the POSIX sort
Is:
printf '%s\n' a,b a,a | sort -c -t, -k1,1
Meant to succeed or not?
It fails in GNU, busybox, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, though with a
confusing:
sort: -:2: disorder: a,a
diagnostic and succeeds in NetBSD.
It succeeds with -s in all implementations that support that
flag (all but Solaris
23 matches
Mail list logo
