On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:34:50AM +0000, Jason McIntyre wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 07:18:33PM +0000, kshe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The manual page for dc(1) is very careful about signalling which
> > commands are non-portable extensions, with the exception of the `e'
> > command, which is a more recent addition.
> >
> > Index: dc.1
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/dc/dc.1,v
> > retrieving revision 1.30
> > diff -u -p -r1.30 dc.1
> > --- dc.1 23 Feb 2017 06:40:17 -0000 1.30
> > +++ dc.1 26 Oct 2017 04:44:01 -0000
> > @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ The top value on the stack is duplicated
> > Equivalent to
> > .Ic p ,
> > except that the output is written to the standard error stream.
> > +This is a non-portable extension.
> > .It Ic f
> > All values on the stack are printed, separated by newlines.
> > .It Ic G
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > kshe
> >
>
> morning.
>
> posix doesn;t describe a separate dc utility, as far as i can see. the
> STANDARDS section of dc(1) discusses only the "arithmetic operations" of
> dc.
>
> bc(1) however does describe -e as an extension, in STANDARDS.
>
> i think here dc(1) is a bit of a special case, but i think how it is now
> is fine. i definitely don;t want to start plastering "this is an
> extension" onto the end of every option not described by posix.
>
> jmc
This is not about the -e flag but about the 'e' command. The frame of
reference is the set of command implemented by the original dc(1). I
think it is a good think to mention that 'e' is non-portable.
-Otto
