Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Pathalogically Obscure and Inconsistent sort behavior - relative key positions dependent on -t usage|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||JW <ohtmvyyn>|
|Component:||coreutils||Assignee:||Tim Waugh <twaugh>|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2006-01-23 02:18:58 EST||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description JW 2006-01-23 01:24:04 EST
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows; U; AIIEEEE!; Win98; Windows 98; en-US; Gecko masquerading as IE; should it matter?; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217 Description of problem: When using sort to sort simple files the separator character specified with -t option is *included* in sort field, but the default separator is not (no -t option supplied). This makes use of sort extraodinarily difficult because it is so inconsistent. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): coreutils-5.2.1-48.1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.echo "x 4a 2" >testfile 2.echo "x 47 1" >>testfile 3.sort -k 2.1,2.2n testfile 4.sort -t' ' -k 2.1,2.2n testfile Actual Results: step 3 produces: x 47 1 x 4a 2 step 4 produces: x 4a 2 x 47 1 Expected Results: The same result in both cases. Additional info: The reason that this bug isn't always very visible is due to the happy coincidence that ascii digits, and the decimal point, are in same lexical order as their numerical values. In the above example the intention is to sort on the entire 2nd numerical field. Of course the "4a" isn't a proper number, but this has been chosen so that the bug becomes more easily discerned. What is actually happening is that in case 3) the values "47" and "4a" get numerically compared as expected. However in case 4) the values " 4" and " 4" get compared, and subsequent non-numerical comparison of "7..." and "a..." is performed. If the "a" was a digit then it would, through the aforementioned happy coincidence, appear to sort correctly. The reason for this very dire behavior is because if "-t" is used to specify the field separator then the separator is included in the field (!!!!). But if -t isn't used then the default field separator (space) isn't (!&*@$%#). Now how, one might wonder, could a "separator" be a separator but not actually be a "separator" - both at the same time. It is abject nonsense to include a separator in a field because then it isn't a separator because it is also considered a part of a field. If one has distinct fields and separators then they should be ... distinct.
Comment 1 JW 2006-01-23 01:28:26 EST
Just an additional clarification: I have reversed the logic in above. The separator is included when -t is *not* specified.