• Discussing features (was Re: @include: helpful feature)

    From Janis Papanagnou@janis_papanagnou@hotmail.com to comp.lang.awk on Tue Apr 5 17:38:41 2022
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.awk

    [ I suggest to use a real newsreader to access Usenet newsgroups;
    it helps you also with the quoting of information you refer to
    in your posts. - Below I fixed it for you. ]

    On 05.04.2022 15:46, Digi wrote:
    Bruce Horrocks wrote:
    ..All these ideas are potential options to be included in a future version >> of GAWK. But GAWK isn't a place for any old extra feature - otherwise it
    would be bloated.

    i understand and that is exactly what i want, thank you =)

    but I think I'm not the only one who offers to contribute some new features in gawk.
    I am very interested to hear about this. is it possible to read such discussions?

    Features have been discussed here in the past. Some requests (that
    had been considered by the maintainers to make sense incorporating
    into GNU Awk) have made their way into the code base. As was to
    expect, many other requests or suggestions have not made it.

    may i offering another ideas?

    It may help to read "B.4.1 Defining What Is and What Is Not A Bug"
    in the GNU Awk manual, which (amongst the bug related stuff) says:

    The following things are not bugs, and should not be reported
    to the bug mailing list. You can ask about them on the “help”
    mailing list (see section Where To Send Non-bug Questions),
    but don’t be surprised if you get an answer of the form
    “that’s how gawk behaves and it isn’t going to change.” [...]

    Missing features, for any definition of feature. [...]

    The number of features that gawk does not have is by definition
    infinite. It cannot be all things to all people. In short,
    just because gawk doesn’t do what you think it should, it’s
    not necessarily a bug.

    I suppose you understand that stance (also WRT features).

    is it good place for this ?

    Basically yes. It's in your interest that the intention is clear,
    that it's well described, and not just Yet Another Nice Feature

    Depending on the type of the feature there's also the possibility
    that you write functionality you desire using the Gawk mechanism
    "Extension Library". That way it's decoupled from awk's core code
    and quality and usefulness of your library will show whether it
    gets used or not. Good coding skills and design experiences are
    mandatory to be successful, I'd say.

    Apart from that mechanism (and provided that a feature request
    makes sense); providing quality code for it likely increases the
    chance to get added.

    A clear feature concept and clear sample code is also a good
    base for a discussion here.


    with Respect

    --- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113