Edgar Toernig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Here's a patch.

That patch's revised documentation doesn't quite describe the code
code accurately, since "ago" isn't allowed just anywhere: it's allowed
only in some places.

More important, that patch doesn't fix the bug that prompted the
code being the way that it is now.  Please see the thread rooted
here:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2005-07/msg00178.html

People have mentioned shell scripts that depend on the old
(contrary-to-documentation) behavior.  Can you please give some
specific examples of these scripts, by name, so that we can see these
uses in context?  That might help us figure out a patch that will get
us out of this mess.  Perhaps there's some interpretation that will
satisfy both sides.


_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils

Reply via email to