[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:11:44 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
Pádraig Brady <address@hidden> 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 notation for this is (strcoll (A,B) == 0 && strcmp (A,B) != 0).
This point was addressed in IEEE Std 1003.1-2001/Cor 1-2002, item
XCU/TC1/D6/40, and it's why the current Posix spec says that the
behavior of uniq depends on LC_COLLATE.
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, (continued)
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Matt Keenan, 2006/06/23
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Pádraig Brady, 2006/06/26
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Paul Eggert, 2006/06/26
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Jim Meyering, 2006/06/26
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Matt Keenan, 2006/06/26
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Jim Meyering, 2006/06/27
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Pádraig Brady, 2006/06/27
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Jim Meyering, 2006/06/27
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Pádraig Brady, 2006/06/27
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N, Jim Meyering, 2006/06/27
- Re: uniq: missing option -W / --check-fields=N,
Paul Eggert <=