On 4/25/22 16:50, Glenn Golden wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022, at 13:06, Paul Eggert wrote:
I'd like coreutils printf to stay compatible with Bash printf. Thanks.
Is there any interest/motivation for consistentizing {coreutils printf, bash
printf} with glibc printf? There's a minor but
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022, at 13:06, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> I'd like coreutils printf to stay compatible with Bash printf. Thanks.
>
Is there any interest/motivation for consistentizing {coreutils printf, bash
printf} with glibc printf? There's a minor but notable inconsistency between
them for
On 4/25/22 11:22, Chet Ramey wrote:
Thanks for the input.
You're welcome. Whenever you decide what to do about this, could you
please let us know? I'd like coreutils printf to stay compatible with
Bash printf. Thanks.
On 4/25/22 11:03 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 4/11/22 11:52, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/9/22 3:31 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
It sounds like there are three cases.
1. If the `L' modifier is supplied, as an extension (POSIX doesn't allow
length modifiers for the printf utility), use long double.
On 4/11/22 11:52, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 4/9/22 3:31 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
It sounds like there are three cases.
1. If the `L' modifier is supplied, as an extension (POSIX doesn't allow
length modifiers for the printf utility), use long double. This would
work in both default and
