On 2019-11-03, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> 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", , , ,
>
>
> Considering this and that [0] doesn't mention anything about alignment,
> just having "%zu %zu %zu %s\n" as before seems li
Hi
Michael Forney 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 f
Hi,
I was looking through wc.c in sbase and noticed a couple curious
things about the output formatting. POSIX says the tool should write
"%d %d %d %s\n", , , ,
When the tool was first written, it used fixed field widths,
presumably to maintain alignment when multiple files were specifi
