GNU bug report logs - #15158
sort complains about incompatible options (that aren't) AND when it shouldn't

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 15158 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 15158 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

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

From: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: sort complains about incompatible options (that aren't) AND when it
 shouldn't
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:57:05 -0700

If I tell sort to do a general numeric sort and interpret
human suffixes, such as
   sort -gh ...

sort fails similarly, if I ask it to sort by numeric size and
respect human suffixes:
   sort -nh ....

sort claims:
sort: options `-dn' are incompatible

similarly, numeric and general numeric are claimed to be
incompatible -- how is that?

Regardless of compatibility or not, sort doesn't
use even use _1_ of the options that were specified.
If it always used the latest option specified as other
utils,  it would still behave in a deterministic manner,
and give correct output in the majority of cases (if not,
then state the "question")...

I don't know which utils have been dumbed down to fail
on, any, ambiguous input (if it is ambiguous, which I
argue, it is not -- as there is a prescribed order for
evaluation), but the emphasis on computer programs
not being resilient.

Rigidly making people wrong and refusing to work unless
they ask you in the exact right language/syntax
is a step backwards for computer programs.  The idea
on computers is to make life easier -- and enforcing
the user to create odd workarounds when the program
could have gotten it right, feels like user-abuse.

Message #8 received at 15158 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
Cc: 15158 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 15157 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15158: sort complains about incompatible options (that aren't)
 AND when it shouldn't
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:07:49 -0700

The -g and -h options of 'sort' are indeed incompatible; they
result in different outputs.

More generally, these bug reports reargue the 'grep' bug reported here:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grep/2013-08/msg00017.html

and replied to here:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grep/2013-08/msg00018.html

Generally speaking, the GNU utilities follow the POSIX utility
syntax guidelines, in particular Guideline 11:

    The order of different options relative to one another
    should not matter, unless the options are documented as
    mutually-exclusive and such an option is documented to
    override any incompatible options preceding it.

    http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html#tag_12_02

It sounds like you're disputing the main part of this guideline
and are advocating always taking the second (exceptional) part.
It's not clear to me that this makes sense, and there are
good arguments for sticking with the more-cautious approach.

Message #11 received at 15158 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: 15158 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 15157 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15158: sort complains about incompatible options (that
 aren't) AND when it shouldn't
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:42:24 -0700

Paul Eggert wrote:
> The -g and -h options of 'sort' are indeed incompatible; they
> result in different outputs.
> 
> More generally, these bug reports reargue the 'grep' bug reported here:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grep/2013-08/msg00017.html
---
	Not really.  There was nothing about the similarity and
overlap of sort options and how integer is still in the class
of general numbers, which includes 'e' as an abbreviation for
a power prefix, just like KMG are power prefixes as well.

	You can't claim that 3.2e+3, where e indicates some
power of 10 follows, and is used  as a scaling factor for 3.2 is
that different from 3.2k, where k is a scaling factor, and, indicates
that 3.2 is scaled by a factor of 10**3.

	They are both general numeric cases... I don't think
I had anything to say, at all, about the overlap of such in grep,
which is inconsistent with itself:

  grep -d read -d skip --color=auto --color=always  foo
(no error)...

  GREP_OPTIONS="-d skip --color=auto -P"
  grep -E "this|that"
  grep: conflicting matchers specified
???
I didn't specify them on the command line -- OR now:
   egrep "this|that"
   egrep: egrep can only use the egrep pattern syntax
But I didn't specify any other syntax... oh.. it reads the cmdline
options of 'grep', but it can't function like grep?  That sounds
a bit ill-designed.

-------
Please don't try to take over and confused bugs on other utils, just
to put forth your view that utilities should default to broken unless
the user invokes them perfectly.

That's a bad User Interface design -- computers are supposed to
be there to help us -- not to enable those who enjoy making others
wrong to do so on a wide scale.


> 
> and replied to here:
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-grep/2013-08/msg00018.html
> 
> Generally speaking, the GNU utilities follow the POSIX utility
> syntax guidelines, in particular Guideline 11:
> 
>     The order of different options relative to one another
>     should not matter, unless the options are documented as
>     mutually-exclusive and such an option is documented to
>     override any incompatible options preceding it.
> 
>     http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html#tag_12_02
> 
> It sounds like you're disputing the main part of this guideline
> and are advocating always taking the second (exceptional) part.
---
The 2nd part has been the norm.  While you are claiming that the
exceptional design should be the norm.

Let me know how specifying your options out of order on gnu tar works
out... There are many contexts where one option enables or disables
others.  The idea that options should be order independent is as
absurd as the idea that the lines in a "C" program should also be order
independent.  This is a perfect example of the ivory tower thinking that
is dominating POSIX now.  While they used to be more practical and describe
what was, now they've jump to the forefront to dictate bad design and
dumbed-down interfaces.   Have you ever thought about the fact that they are
funded by Corporations who might have an interest in seeing Linux's
open nature be killed off -- and/or it's usage reduced?


> It's not clear to me that this makes sense, and there are
> good arguments for sticking with the more-cautious approach.
----
So you have said, but name some that would be true for most people and
make more sense than the previous, deterministic approach...

As it is, I could point to sources by "them" and talk about what
"they" said and "everyone knows"... to make my point, but I'll
rely on the common sense that most people have in knowing that
having programs that are resilient in the face of odd
user input and have it do something useful and predictable
is far better than having fragile programs that break on all
but perfect input.

Message #14 received at 15158 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
Cc: 15158 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15158: sort complains about incompatible options (that aren't)
 AND when it shouldn't
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 04:12:18 +0100

tag 15158 notabug
close 15158
stop

On 08/21/2013 10:57 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> 
> If I tell sort to do a general numeric sort and interpret
> human suffixes, such as
>    sort -gh ...
> 
> sort fails similarly, if I ask it to sort by numeric size and
> respect human suffixes:
>    sort -nh ....
> 
> sort claims:
> sort: options `-dn' are incompatible
> 
> similarly, numeric and general numeric are claimed to be
> incompatible -- how is that?
> 
> Regardless of compatibility or not, sort doesn't
> use even use _1_ of the options that were specified.
> If it always used the latest option specified as other
> utils,  it would still behave in a deterministic manner,
> and give correct output in the majority of cases (if not,
> then state the "question")...
> 
> I don't know which utils have been dumbed down to fail
> on, any, ambiguous input (if it is ambiguous, which I
> argue, it is not -- as there is a prescribed order for
> evaluation), but the emphasis on computer programs
> not being resilient.
> 
> Rigidly making people wrong and refusing to work unless
> they ask you in the exact right language/syntax
> is a step backwards for computer programs.  The idea
> on computers is to make life easier -- and enforcing
> the user to create odd workarounds when the program
> could have gotten it right, feels like user-abuse.

So for these comparison options, it's not obvious what's
going on in the implementation. One might think that if -dn
was specified, that something like "dictionary" was used and
then "numeric" done to break ties. Similary with -gh, one
might think that -h was an adjustment to -g rather than
being a _separate_ comparison method entirely.

The errors are imparting this info to the user.
Given the complexity of the option combinations
for sort(1) in particular, it's important to do so.

The edge case of a default sort invocation using for example -d,
which is then overridden with -n through config, is not usual,
and thus should not proceed, for the reason above.

Now you have a point about non mutually exclusive args,
which I'll respond to in the related bugs you opened.

thanks,
Pádraig.

Previous Next

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