Hi Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org> wrote: > [...] > > This leaves issue 1, which makes me wonder about the point of the > field widths if they aren't for alignment of the output. If we don't > care about alignment, I think we should just use "%zu %zu %zu %s\n". > If we do care about the alignment, we should use fixed widths similar > to the original code, like "%6zu %6zu %6zu %s\n". But now we've come > full circle, which makes me wonder what POSIX compliance issue commit > 39802832 was meant to fix. Is the leading whitespace for the first > field a problem? If so, I don't think trying for alignment makes sense
I assume it's the leading whitespace that was the problem since here[0] the output format is given as "%d %d %d %s\n", <newlines>, <words>, <bytes>, <file> Considering this and that [0] doesn't mention anything about alignment, just having "%zu %zu %zu %s\n" as before seems like the right choice. Cheers, Silvan [0] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/