Hello,
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 23:44:22 +
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
Well, as far as I know, mawk has some sort of terrible UTF-8
support, so it's a no way for many applications.
Could you please explain? And if you haven't filed a bug report,
could you please
Hello,
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:23:45 +
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
I've seen a lot of cases over the years of packages depending on gawk
that do not need it. If you only need a standard nawk (new awk), you
do not need to depend on gawk. mawk is smaller and faster
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 07:59:14AM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:23:45 +
brian m. carlson sand...@crustytoothpaste.net wrote:
I've seen a lot of cases over the years of packages depending on gawk
that do not need it. If you only need a standard nawk (new awk),
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:23:45PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
If your script does require some feature that is not available in mawk
or original-awk, you explicitly need to call gawk, since /usr/bin/awk is
an alternative and you cannot assume that it will point to gawk.
I wonder, would a
I've seen a lot of cases over the years of packages depending on gawk
that do not need it. If you only need a standard nawk (new awk), you do
not need to depend on gawk. mawk is smaller and faster and sufficient
for almost all needs, and the existence of some awk on the system is
guaranteed by
5 matches
Mail list logo
