Re: might be a bug in gawk

[Micah Cowan]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aharon Robbins wrote:
>> Note that this comment is documenting that the field width isn't
>> _applied_, not that it isn't accepted, so AFAICT my comments remain
>> appropriate. It's explaining why you didn't get a % right-justified in a
>> 29-width field.
>>
>> But at any rate C99 is not the relevant standard for awk printf
>> behavior; SUS is, and SUS doesn't define it in terms of the C function,
>> but in terms of its own printf-like "format specification"; I don't see
>> any license for field width to be ignored for the % specifier. Arguably,
>> the field width should be applied (but I'm not recommending that change,
>> just noting that it could be more conforming).
> 
> I haven't looked at the text of SUS yet.  In any case, I don't plan to
> change the current behavior.

Right. I'd more likely treat this as a deficiency in SUS than anything else.

BTW, the relevant text from C99 is §7.19.6.1#8:

% A % character is written. No argument is converted. The complete
  conversion specification shall be %%.

- --
Micah J. Cowan
Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer.
Maintainer of GNU Wget and GNU Teseq
http://micah.cowan.name/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAknOnSsACgkQ7M8hyUobTrFmegCfY+ef4Q7fACR/elcKtVUsW34O
MPEAn1DtWwrye4fmlO9/G2DWz6Jgasym
=NVKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----