Subject: Re: RFC: changing printf(1) behavior on %b

From: Stephane Chazelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 08:12:33 +0100

2023-09-01 09:44:08 +0300, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 7:41 AM Phi Debian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > My vote is for posix_printf %B mapping to libc_printf %b
> 
> In the shell we already have bc for base conversion. Does POSIX really
> have to support C2x %b in the first place?

Yes, though note:

- that implies forking a process and loading an external
  executable and its libraries
- bc is not always available. It's not installed by default on
  Debian for instance.
- for bases over 16, it uses some unusual representation that
  can't be used anywhere.

A summary of some options for some common POSIX-like shells at
https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/191205/bash-base-conversion-from-decimal-to-hex/191209#191209

-- 
Stephane