Possible issue with awk

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 10 March 2010 14:34:45 Harald Becker wrote:
> > dunno about \"original awk specification\" but i know that we should
> > adhere to:
> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/awk.html
>
> This doesn't specify how for loops are implemented. Allocating temporary
> for-in loop variables is a pure gnu extension I assume.

In a previous message, you said:

> gawk, gawk --compat and gawk --posix and two other awk's I tried with do
> all display the FOO_2.0 section on output.

The two other awks were also gawk?
ecursive function usage.

> ... and Denys patch is a poor (not to say bad) hack. It will never be
> expandable to a fully functional version (that is breaking loops). Let
> me see, if I can find out what are the internal differences of for-in
> loops between gawk and busybox and if we can adapt those changes to
> busybox.

I never look at the FSF's implementation of anything when designing a busybox 
command.  It cannot POSSIBLY improve matters.  You can throw test cases at the 
two to check their behavior, but knowledge of the FSF implementation costs you 
SAN points and is likely to damage your design skills for some time.

Rob
-- 
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds