On Friday, 29 May 2020 19:35:06 CEST Jakub Wilk wrote: > I think you're misinterpreting the standard. If it really meant that > implementations must not support any options, it would say so > explicitly, like it does for echo: > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html
Indeed, you are correct. In that case printf may have >= 0 options and whether options are parsed at all is unspecified. This also explains the lack of any reference to "Section 12.2, Utility Syntax Guidelines". Apologies for the noise. -- Melvin Vermeeren
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
