Re: sort -o x -o y

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dan Jacobson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> $ echo a|sort -o x -o y
>> $ ls
>> y
>
> POSIX allows this behavior, but it's admittedly weird.
>
> I think that option order should not matter, unless POSIX or the
> documentation explicitly says otherwise.  So I propose the following
> patch.  While looking into this problem I noticed that sort's -t
> option doesn't let you specify a NUL as a field separator (this is a
> related issue since 'sort' uses 0 to represent "no option specified
> yet").  Also, the documentation and usage strings incorrectly say
> "white space" several places where they should say "blanks".  Here's
> a patch for these problems.
>
> 2003-09-02  Paul Eggert  <address@hidden>
>
>       * NEWS: sort -t '\0' now uses a NUL tab.
>       sort option order no longer matters, unless POSIX requires it.
>       * doc/coreutils.texi (sort invocation): -d now overrides -i.
>       "whitespace" -> "blanks"; "whitespace" isn't correct.
>       -t '\0' now specifies a NUL tab.
>       * src/sort.c (usage): Say "blanks" instead of "whitespace",
>       Similar fixes for many comments.
>       (TAB_DEFAULT): New constant, so that we can support NUL as
>       the field separator.
>       (tab): Now int, not char.  Initialize to TAB_DEFAULT.
>       (specify_sort_size): If multiple sizes are specified, use the largest.
>       (begfield, limfield): Support NUL tab char.
>       (set_ordering): Do not let -i override -d.
>       (main): Report an error if incompatible -o or -t options are given.
>       Report an error for "-t ''".  Allow "-t '\0'" to specify a NUL tab.

Thank you both!
I've applied that patch and added a couple of tests.