On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, Martin Husemann wrote:
If you want to write a two digit octal number you can not continue with
another ocatal digit. In C you could do "...\77" "7" and have it concat
the literals. In config files (without concatenation) you need some
other trick.
Couple of ways to do tha
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:45:55PM -0400, Mouse wrote:
> >>> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
> >>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
> >>> number."
> >> [...]
> > I beg to differ: since due to this very unfortunate "variable lengt
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:58:57PM +0200, Roland Illig a écrit :
> Am 28.06.2023 um 12:57 schrieb tlaro...@polynum.com:
> > But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
> >
> > '"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> > written as a byte with the numeric value specified
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 04:24:20PM +, RVP a écrit :
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> > But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
> > octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
> >
>
> That would be a very surprising way to resolve the ambigu
I'm using various things that uses numpy. I have had a problem with
long double versions of log functions on x86, and with other functions
on arm. I don't actually need these functions, but numpy wraps them and
thus the shlib won't load. The numpy package build succeeds. I think
it's a bug by i
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:45:55PM -0400, Mouse a écrit :
> >>> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
> >>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
> >>> number."
> >> [...]
> > I beg to differ: since due to this very unfortunate "variable le
Am 28.06.2023 um 12:57 schrieb tlaro...@polynum.com:
> But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
>
> '"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number.'
The main intended takeaway from this sentence is th
>>> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall
>>> be written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal
>>> number."
>> [...]
> I beg to differ: since due to this very unfortunate "variable length"
> feature, your scanner has to read char by char, it can rejec
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 06:06:38PM +0200, Martin Husemann a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:59:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> > written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number."
> >
>
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
That would be a very surprising way to resolve the ambiguity which is
present here. There are others when it comes to octal notati
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:59:10PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> "\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number."
>
> ? Because I parse it as: an octal escape sequence can be \d, or \dd or
> \dd
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:26:55PM +0200, Martin Husemann a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:01:46PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> > But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
> > octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
>
> No, from the Posix text you quot
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 05:01:46PM +0200, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> But you can't: from the syntax given, \777 is a perfectly valid \77
> octal sequence followed by the character '7'.
No, from the Posix text you quoted it clearly is a three digit ocatl
sequence, and its value is out of range.
Le Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 01:10:04PM +, RVP a écrit :
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
>
> > But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
> >
> > '"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
> > written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the o
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
But isn't it incorrect? POSIX 2018 says:
'"\ddd", where ddd is a one, two, or three-digit octal number, shall be
written as a byte with the numeric value specified by the octal number.'
since 477 -> 777 are not byte values, shouldn't \777 be int
When refactoring and rewriting the scanning/parsing code for inetd(8), I
wanted to add, too, the possibility to pass octal escape sequences
(hex were already added) in order to be less surprising and to,
actually, support whatever an admin is acustomed to use when invoking
utilities.
Since this is
16 matches
Mail list logo
