On Sun, 2021-02-14 at 20:22 +0100, Erik Auerswald wrote: > Hi, > > On 13.02.21 21:28, Leonard Janis Robert König wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-02-13 at 21:15 +0100, Erik Auerswald wrote: > > > On 13.02.21 19:29, Leonard Janis Robert König wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > That being said, I don't see this exact distinction reflected > > > > in > > > > the > > > > code, so perhaps I just misunderstood. > > > > > > Disabling "Tabification" only when "-s" was active is missing. > > > That > > > resulted in the 2007 bug. Making the needed special treatment > > > always > > > used fixed the 2007 bug, but broke your use case. > > > > > > That some special treatment is needed and intended can be gleaned > > > from the following comment (with line numbers from pr.c in the > > > current master branch @ > > > 2de30c7350a77b091afa1eb284acdf082c0f6aa5): > > > > > > 1031 /* It's rather pointless to define a TAB separator with > > > column > > > 1032 alignment */ > > The code after that comment does not disable alignment, but changes > the separator from a TAB to a space. > > > > My patch adds the special treatment, since it works both for the > > > 2007 > > > bug and this bug (bug#46422). > > The attached version 4 of my patch does that in a way that more > clearly shows the intent. I think this is a better fix for the > 2007 bug than commit 553d347d3e08e00ee4f9df520b37c964c3f26e28. > Expanding TABs on input is enabled unless when a single TAB is > used as column separator. This conforms better to POSIX and > does not introduce the regression that causes the current bug > (bug#46422). > > I have added more test cases, because manual testing showed that > the options "-s" and "-s$'\t'" were treated differently by pr. > > Using "-s" to activate the default TAB separator should result > in the same output as using "-s$'\t'" to specify one TAB character > as separator, i.e., the default, explicitly. > > > > > [...] with the patch my rather obscure (and complex) > > > > use case of printing thousands of lines of code works properly > > > > now! > > > > > > Thanks for testing! > > > > Thanks all to you > > May I ask you to test the new patch (v4) as well?
Sure! I got identical output compared to the previous version (I don't use `-s`) so it doesn't seem to break anything, but fixes the bug as intended. Thanks again! ~leo
