Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> uniq can be efficient and assume LANG=C always as
> it need only care if adjacent items match or not.
I'm afraid it's not that simple. In some locales it's possible that
two strings A and B can compare equal even though their bytes differ.
The C notati
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, that's still a problem.
>> Would you like to work on it?
>
> Hmm looks like that's done already?
> http://www.openi18n.org/subgroups/utildev/dli18npatch2.html
>
> $ cat Pádraig
> Pádraig
> PÁdraig
>
> $ ./i18n-uniq -i < Pádraig
> Pádraig
It's not so
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>>> -g, --general-numeric-sort compare according to general numerical value
>>> -M, --month-sortcompare (unknown) < `JAN' < ... < `DEC'
>>> -n, --numeric-sort compare according to
Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> I'm glad you're willing to work on this.
>> It's an often-requested feature.
>> Unfortunately, the Debian -W patch was not acceptable.
>> It did not allow the same flexibility that sort does in
>> selecting keys.
Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> I'm glad you're willing to work on this.
> It's an often-requested feature.
> Unfortunately, the Debian -W patch was not acceptable.
> It did not allow the same flexibility that sort does in
> selecting keys. To provide that, GNU uniq will eventually
> accept
Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> [snip snip]
>> I agree, and think I wrote exactly the same thing: uniq needs the
>> same
>> -k key-selection options as sort -- probably in response to a request
>> to integrate the Debian patch. I went to look for it a couple days
Jim Meyering wrote:
[snip snip]
I agree, and think I wrote exactly the same thing: uniq needs the same
-k key-selection options as sort -- probably in response to a request
to integrate the Debian patch. I went to look for it a couple days ago,
but got side-tracked.
I am happy to write
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Making a patch from the debian sources is not a difficult task
>> and I can provide one if necessary.
>
> On thinking about it further, I like the idea of having 'uniq' be
> consistent with 'sort', but I'd prefer
Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Making a patch from the debian sources is not a difficult task
> and I can provide one if necessary.
On thinking about it further, I like the idea of having 'uniq' be
consistent with 'sort', but I'd prefer 'uniq' to have the same syntax
as 'sort', i.e, 'u
Matt Keenan wrote:
>
> Paul Eggert wrote:
>
>> Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Paul Eggert has mentioned that upstream uniq has never had a -W
>>> flag. Would you be receptive to a patch?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure. Does any distribution other than Debian-derived
>> di
Paul Eggert wrote:
Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul Eggert has mentioned that upstream uniq has never had a -W
flag. Would you be receptive to a patch?
I'm not sure. Does any distribution other than Debian-derived
distributions have it? More importantly, what's it used
Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Eggert has mentioned that upstream uniq has never had a -W
> flag. Would you be receptive to a patch?
I'm not sure. Does any distribution other than Debian-derived
distributions have it? More importantly, what's it used for and
useful for?
__
Matt Keenan wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> uniq(1) used to have an option for checking only a certain number of
> fields. I have since noticed that some scripts I wrote some time ago
> have stopped working because the -W / --check-fields=N option has
> disappeared. Can it please be put back in? I am
Eric Blake wrote:
uniq(1) used to have an option for checking only a certain number of
fields. I have since noticed that some scripts I wrote some time ago
have stopped working because the -W / --check-fields=N option has
disappeared. Can it please be put back in?
It's still there in th
Matt Keenan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> uniq(1) used to have an option for checking only a certain number of
> fields.
I don't think the upstream version ever had -W.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/
> uniq(1) used to have an option for checking only a certain number of
> fields. I have since noticed that some scripts I wrote some time ago
> have stopped working because the -W / --check-fields=N option has
> disappeared. Can it please be put back in?
It's still there in the latest stable ve
Greetings all,
uniq(1) used to have an option for checking only a certain number of
fields. I have since noticed that some scripts I wrote some time ago
have stopped working because the -W / --check-fields=N option has
disappeared. Can it please be put back in? I am happy to write a patch
to
17 matches
Mail list logo
