GNU bug report logs - #66253
sort manpage should be more explicit

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 66253 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 66253 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jorge Stolfi <stolfi <at> ic.unicamp.br>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: sort manpage should be more explicit
Date: 2023年9月28日 07:11:50 -0300

The full documentation of sort explains that numeric sorting (as in 
"sort -n") accepts a leading "-" sign, decimal points, thousands 
separators, etc, but does not accept an explicit "+" sign. Values with 
explicit "+" are treated as numeric 0 and ties are broken by alpha sort.
However, the manpage only says that "-n" "compares according to string 
numerical value" -- and one would expect the numerical value of "+100" 
to be 100, not zero.
It took me an hour to figure out that my "sort -n" was failing because 
of this "feature". Surely many users have wasted time too, or worse. 
So please either
1) explain precisely IN THE MANPAGE what is a valid number;
2) make numeric sort accept a leading "+", as users would expect;
3) make numeric sort abort with an error message if any field that is 
supposed to be sorted numerically is not a valid number.
I think the best solution for users would be to implement all three of 
these...
Thank you, and all the best
--jorge
-- 
Jorge Stolfi - Professor Titular/Full Professor
Instituto de Computação/Computer Science Dept
Universidade Estadual de Campinas/State University of Campinas
Campinas, SP - Brazil

Message #10 received at 66253-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: Jorge Stolfi <stolfi <at> ic.unicamp.br>, 66253-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66253: sort manpage should be more explicit
Date: 2023年9月28日 12:22:35 +0100

On 28/09/2023 11:11, Jorge Stolfi wrote:
> The full documentation of sort explains that numeric sorting (as in
> "sort -n") accepts a leading "-" sign, decimal points, thousands
> separators, etc, but does not accept an explicit "+" sign. Values with
> explicit "+" are treated as numeric 0 and ties are broken by alpha sort.
> 
> However, the manpage only says that "-n" "compares according to string
> numerical value" -- and one would expect the numerical value of "+100"
> to be 100, not zero.
> 
> It took me an hour to figure out that my "sort -n" was failing because
> of this "feature". Surely many users have wasted time too, or worse.
> So please either
> 
> 1) explain precisely IN THE MANPAGE what is a valid number;
> 
> 2) make numeric sort accept a leading "+", as users would expect;
> 
> 3) make numeric sort abort with an error message if any field that is
> supposed to be sorted numerically is not a valid number.
> 
> I think the best solution for users would be to implement all three of
> these...
> 
> Thank you, and all the best
Note the --debug option really helps with all this:
 $ printf '%s\n' '+4' ' 5' '-1,2.3' | sort -s -n --debug
 sort: note numbers use ‘.’ as a decimal point in this locale
 -1,2.3
 ______
 +4
 ^ no match for key
 5
 _
In saying that, sorting numbers is such a common use case,
it's probably worth adding an extra couple of lines to the man page.
I think I'll apply the following later:
 -n, --numeric-sort compare according to string numerical value.
 leading blanks, negative sign, decimal point,
 and thousands separators are supported.
cheers,
Pádraig

Message #13 received at 66253 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: 66253 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, P <at> draigBrady.com, stolfi <at> ic.unicamp.br
Subject: Re: bug#66253: sort manpage should be more explicit
Date: 2023年9月28日 18:11:12 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 9/28/23 04:22, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 
>  -n, --numeric-sort     compare according to string numerical value.
>                 leading blanks, negative sign, decimal 
> point,
>                 and thousands separators are supported.
Although a valiant effort this is likely to cause other trouble, as it 
uses multiple terms (blanks, decimal point, thousands separator) without 
explanation, and it omits the role of the locale. I suggest instead that 
we simply say "see the manual", and tighten up the manual to explain 
these and, while we're at it, other things (e.g., -0 vs 0).
I gave that a shot by installing the attached.
PS to Jorge: Changing behavior as you suggested would likely cause 
trouble, as many programs depend on the current behavior, which is 
standardized by POSIX here:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sort.html#tag_20_119_04 

[0001-sort-improve-help.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.