Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail
From: Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug
Subject: Re: Incorrect option processing in builtin printf(1)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:48:44 +0100
Lines: 23
Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org
Message-ID: <mailman.2023.1563824931.2688.bug-bash@gnu.org>
References: <201907221756.x6MHuxaR019063@jinx.noi.kre.to> <mailman.2014.1563818289.2688.bug-bash@gnu.org> <20190722194843.azebfqpardb76fdd@chaz.gmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: bug-bash@gnu.org
To: kre@munnari.OZ.AU
Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <mailman.2014.1563818289.2688.bug-bash@gnu.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:15200

2019-07-23 00:56:59 +0700, kre@munnari.OZ.AU:
[...]
> 	POSIX specifies that printf(1) has no options, and by not
> 	specifying that it is intended to comply with XBD 12.2 effectivly
> 	says that it is not.   That is, in printf, the first arg is
> 	always the format string, whatever it contains.
[...]

If that was the case, then that would be bug in the POSIX
specification. I can't find a single printf implementations
where printf -- outputs -- (I tried bash, zsh, ksh93, GNU, yash,
busybox, busybox ash, Solaris /bin/printf).

Even if POSIX didn't mandate

printf -- -%s x

to output -x, I'd say it would be a bug in the POSIX
specification (it looks like it is).

-- 
Stephane