Re: printf and POSIX compliance

[DervishD <raul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    Hi Stephane :)

> >     That is Single Unix Specification, not POSIX, am I wrong?
> I must confess I've not understood all of this imbroglio of
> obscure specifications

    Neither have I O:)) And the number of specs seems to grow on a
daily basis...

> > > Note that neither bash nor GNU printf behave better.
> [...]
> >     BTW, as far as I know, zsh has not a printf builtin.
> I was actually speaking of printf builtin in zsh developpement
> series (4.1.1-dev-x), aka "print -f"

    Oh, sorry, didn't know that the development branch of zsh
implements a printf builtin O:)

> So, that doesn't really matter if zsh printf adopts one syntax or
> another, but it may be wise to pick the one that is more likely to
> eventually become standard one day. Maybe the bash behavior (\351
> and \0351 both expanding to é) is the least worst...

    I think that is better to stuck to an standard, being that POSIX
or SuS. Since SuS gives its spec freely (I mean, you don't have to
pay for giving free software to the community that is SuS compliant)
I prefer that standard over the rest, but obviously is a personal
choice ;)))

    Being bash-compliant is, IMHO, just a way of standardize bad
behaviour. If GNU printf is broken, non POSIX or SuS compliant, then
submit a bug report. The shellutils developers care about standard
compliance, I've submitted such bug reports in the past.

    Bye :)
    Raúl