I think that we should go ahead and do it.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, 5:06 PM Zachary Santer <zsan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:34 AM Léa Gris <lea.g...@noiraude.net> wrote:
> >
> > Le 06/06/2024 à 11:55, Koichi Murase écrivait :
> >
> > > Though, I see your point. It is inconvenient that we cannot pass the
> > > results of arithmetic evaluations to the `printf' builtin. This
> > > appears to be an issue of the printf builtin. I think the `printf'
> > > builtin should be extended to interpret both forms of the numbers, the
> > > locale-dependent formatted number and the floating-point literals.
> >
> > Another way would be to expand string representation of floating-point
> > numbers using the locale.
>
> Parameter transformations could be implemented to serve this purpose.
> Let's say, if var is in the form of a C floating-point literal,
> ${var@F} would expand it to the locale-dependent formatted number, for
> use as an argument to printf or for output directly. And then ${var@f}
> would go the other way, taking var that's in the form of a
> locale-dependent formatted number, and expanding it to a C
> floating-point literal.
>
> In this scenario, any floating point numbers ingested by the bash
> script would be transformed to C floating-point literals before they
> are referenced or manipulated in an arithmetic context, and then they
> would be transformed back into the locale-dependent formatted number
> before being output from the script.
>
> Arithmetic evaluation is performed on the right-hand side of an
> assignment statement assigning to a variable declared with the -i
> integer attribute. A hypothetical -E floating-point variable attribute
> in bash should work the same way. As such, a variable with the -E
> attribute would have to be assigned a value in a format accepted by
> the arithmetic context, i.e. the C floating-point literal format.
>
> So you'd have to do
> declare -E var="${arg@f}"
> in order to safely handle the locale-dependent formatted number arg,
> an argument to the script.
>
> Any floating-point literals within the script would have to be
> formatted as C floating-point literals, at least if they're going to
> be assigned the -E attribute or used in an arithmetic context.
>
> And then you would have to do
> printf '%f' "${var@F}"
> to safely output the value using printf.
>
> Is that unreasonable?
>
> Zack
>
>
