Re: [Quilt-dev] Re: gawk 3.0.6 doesn't support asort

[John Vandenberg]

Jean,

On 9/6/05, Jean Delvare <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> [Jean Delvare]
> > > Also, your extension of the sort test looks interesting, so I plan to
> > > commit it at the same time.
>
> [John Vandenberg]
> > that extension to the sort test is necessary in order to ensure sort
> > does the right thing wrt the added files.  At present, the test is
> > only verifying that the "files_in_patch" come back sorted; whereas I
> > think it is supposed to also sort the "filenames_in_patch" that are
> > not part of "files_in_patch".
>
> files_in_patch is actually supposed to come back in order, not sorted
> (unless --sort is used) and that's what the test was checking, together
> with the fact that added files are put after the existing ones (but that
> one would be quite hard to fail.)

Argh.  that would be what I meant to say.

> ... I fully agree that this wasn't
> sufficient. Even with your extension it hardly is, as having two values
> come back in the expected order has a 50% probability to happen. We
> probably should add even more files in this test to make it more rebust.

Adding more files to the test sounds good.

> > Do your changes pass my test?  I will test your change today to
> > confirm it works on OS X, Solaris and MSYS.
>
> Yes, I tested my code with your extended test case and it passed OK.

Great.  I have tested your change on all but OSX; there is no point
waiting, as I can always use gawk in the unlikely event that OSX awk
doesn't like your replacement code.

Thanks for tackling this compatibility problem, and coming up with a
better solution.
--
John