Re: PATCH Re: 5.3: printf -

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chet Ramey wrote on Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 18:48:13 -0500:
> On 12/15/16 5:45 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> 
> > This surprises me; it doesn't match my understanding of the spec.
> > (I thought POSIX would take "--" to be the format string.)
> 
> "Standard utilities that do not accept options, but that do accept
> operands, shall recognize "--" as a first argument to be discarded."
> 
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap01.html#tag_17_04

Thank you for the reference.

diff --git a/Test/B03print.ztst b/Test/B03print.ztst
index 7a43f9c..c65568a 100644
--- a/Test/B03print.ztst
+++ b/Test/B03print.ztst
@@ -334,5 +334,3 @@
 0:regression test of printf with assorted ambiguous options or formats
 >------x
 ?(eval):printf:3: not enough arguments
-F:There is some question whether "printf --" should be an error as above,
-F:or should treat "--" as the format string.  Bash agrees on the error.