On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:06:52AM +0400, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > I'm pretty sure it will be accepted by Brian since another option > already allowed its argument to be specified without a preceding > space,
I don't think so. My experience shows that he does not accept fixes easily, f.e. our locale POSIX and GNU awk compatible fixes many people send to him several times already. I can't tell for sure about this change exactly, but... > and I don't share your argument of "this is BWK awk". I > think it's more important to be POSIX-compliant than BWK-compliant, > even if it means to change vendor code. Of a particular interest > is item 2.c of POSIX's Utility Argument Syntax. I fully agree with that. POSIX compatibility is our primary goal here. We don't need Another One non-POSIX Private Awk clone by the price of be GNU-free here. BTW, I was among few who dislike GAWK replacement with BAWK, because of poor BAWK POSIX compatibility. Initially it was in even more poor state than now, it is a long story how our fixes was accepted in the one release and then rejected in the following one afterwards and so on. IMHO I still think that GAWK is more actively developed (I mean betas, not 2002 release, FSF releases are very obsoleted as usual) and have good a chances to become truly multibyte, but we already made our choice long time ago( -- http://ache.pp.ru/
pgpzQThyzZHto.pgp
Description: PGP signature
