Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: printf \045 (or whatever the character code for % is)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 28573
- From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Zsh Hackers' List" <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: printf \045 (or whatever the character code for % is)
- Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 20:46:12 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20110105173944.47123402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <20101229211155.GA22720@xxxxxxxx> <20110105173944.47123402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jan 5, 5:39pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} > POSIX's description assumes that the backslash escapes and format
} > specifications are processed in one pass and simply says that an
} > octal escape sequence shall write the corresponding byte. If they
} > are separate passes the backslash escape removal step needs to know
} > about percent signs.
}
} That's a reasonable assumption, but the function handling print is an
} appalling mess so it's not easy to fix without a major rewrite.
The octal escapes are all handled by getkeystring(). There's already
a special macro GETKEYS_PRINTF_FMT which (unfortunately?) is used for
both "printf" and "print -f".
} The code for printf doesn't really have any business being associated
} with the code for print, they're there for different purposes entirely
} based on completely different specifications. At the moment printf
} does the same as 'print -f', so it has all the same oddities as print
} whether it should or not.
I'm not entirely sure that's true. The printf builtin doesn't accept
any options, which means that except for the initial getkeystring(),
nearly everything in bin_print() is ignored until you get down to the
part that handles the format spec ... and that can't be replaced by
e.g. sprintf() because of misc. special formats like %b and %q.
} (In my opinion, anyone deliberately asking for combined print and
} printf behaviour deserves everything they get so I'm perfectly happy
} to let 'print -f' fester while standardising printf.)
Although we could rip the format handling out of bin_print() and
create a new bin_printf() [which would be called by "print -f"?] we'd
still need something akin to getkeystring() for the octal escapes.
} However, I never get volunteers for tidying the shell up, so we're
} probably stuck until someone gets fed up enough to look into it.
GETKEYS_PRINTF_FMT expands to GETKEY_OCTAL_ESC|GETKEY_BACKSLASH_C ...
seems as though an additional flag to getkeystring() could be used to
cause \045 to expand to %% as a special case, something like this in
utils.c:
@@ -5517,6 +5522,8 @@
}
*t++ = zstrtol(s + (*s == 'x'), &s,
(*s == 'x') ? 16 : 8);
+ if ((how & GETKEY_PRINTF) && t[-1] == '%')
+ *t++ = '%';
if (svchar) {
u[3] = svchar;
svchar = '\0';
The flag bits for "how" are an enum in zsh.h and I'm undecided whether
to renumber them or just add another to the end, so I have't included
a complete patch. Also I don't know whether the intent is that \045
(and \x25) should become %% only for "printf" or also for "print -f",
so no patch for builtin.c yet either.
--
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author