On 12/20/14 11:58 AM, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> In article ,
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> 3. There's not actually a lot of demand to make it available, and few
>> implementations go through the pain (even the standalone GNU printf).
>> The only one I found after a quick non-exhaustive search is the k
In article ,
Chet Ramey wrote:
>3. There's not actually a lot of demand to make it available, and few
> implementations go through the pain (even the standalone GNU printf).
> The only one I found after a quick non-exhaustive search is the ksh93
> builtin, which doesn't use the libc printf
On 12/19/14, 9:46 AM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
> man 3 printf describes the following:
>
> o An optional field, consisting of a decimal digit string followed
> by a $, specifying the next argument to access. If this field is not
> provided,
> the argument following the last argum
On 12/19/2014 07:46 AM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
> Is there a particular reason why bash's built-in printf does not support
> this format modifier?
Because POSIX does not require it to. printf(1) is only required to
have a subset of printf(3) functionality:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9
man 3 printf describes the following:
o An optional field, consisting of a decimal digit string followed
by a $, specifying the next argument to access. If this field is not
provided,
the argument following the last argument accessed will be used.
Arguments are numbered starting a
