[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WHINY_USERS=0
From: |
Aharon Robbins |
Subject: |
Re: WHINY_USERS=0 |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:06:54 +0200 |
Greetings. Re this:
> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:41:26 +0200
> From: Hermann Peifer <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> CC: address@hidden
> Subject: WHINY_USERS=0
>
> I was making some WHINY_USERS performance tests, following the example
> at http://awk.info/?tip/whinyUsers
>
> It looks to me that not only WHINY_USERS=1, but also WHINY_USERS=0 or
> even WHINY_USERS= are leading to sorted processing of arrays. I have
> to actually unset WHINY_USERS in order to get back to default array
> processing. The corresponding test in AWK source code (main.c) is:
>
> if (getenv("WHINY_USERS") != NULL)
> whiny_users = TRUE;
>
> I am wondering if this is rather a feature or something else?
>
> Regards, Hermann
It's what programmer types call an "easter egg", meaning an undocumented
feature with unusual or interesting behavior, and I intend to keep it
that way (but see the gawk.texi file :-).
The feature as coded means "if WHINY_USERS exists in the environment,
enable the whiny user related features." (There are at least two.)
So, the behavior you're seeing is what I wanted. I don't intend to
change it.
Personally, I think you should use asort or asorti if you want array
sorting. The code is much clearer that way.
Thanks,
Arnold
- WHINY_USERS=0, Hermann Peifer, 2009/10/23
- Re: WHINY_USERS=0,
Aharon Robbins <=
- Message not available
Re: WHINY_USERS=0, Aharon Robbins, 2009/10/30