Re: non working code .. loop ends after one

[Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 01:24:29AM +0100, alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, 1:21 AM Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 1, 2023, at 7:09 PM, alex xmb ratchev wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023, 12:39 AM Lawrence Velázquez <vq@larryv.me> wrote:
> > >> It will also be in the next version of POSIX:
> > >> https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=243#c6110
> > >
> > >
> > > there is imo ' big undefined ' there
> > > they state , to change to , ' if {} is one char '
> > > what if more than one
> >
> > Then the behavior is unspecified (i.e., implementation-dependent).
> > That's not your opinion; it is literally what the new text says.
> >
> 
> ye , undef behav , what i say
> 
>         The following options shall be supported:
> >
> >         -d delim
> >
> >                 If _delim_ consists of one single-byte character,
> >                 that byte shall be used as the logical line delimiter.
> >                 If _delim_ is the null string, the logical line
> >                 delimiter shall be the null byte.  Otherwise, the
> >                 behavior is unspecified.
> >
> > --
> > vq
> >

Note that there is a slight difference between "unspecified" (which is
what the quoted text uses) and "undefined" (which is what you use).  It
may not make much difference to the discussion at hand but...

Something (data input or program construct) that is "unspecified" is
still *valid*, but the standard does not say what the behaviour or
resulting value is.

Something that is "undefined" is *not* valid, and the standard does not
say what the behaviour or resulting value is.


-- 
Andreas (Kusalananda) Kähäri
SciLifeLab, NBIS, ICM
Uppsala University, Sweden

.