WG15 Defect Report Ref: 9945-2-61
Topic: more -t, vi -t, ex -t


This is an approved interpretation of 9945-2:1993.

.

Last update: 1997-05-20


								9945-2-61

 _____________________________________________________________________________


	Topic:			more -t, vi -t, ex -t
	Relevant Sections:	5.7, 5.10, 5.18, 5.35


Defect Report:
-----------------------------------
(A.Josey/ X/Open)

The "more -t tagstring" option says that it will
Write the screenful of the file containing the tag named by the
tagstring argument.

We presume  that more should behave like ex and vi as specified 
in 5.10.7.2.32's description of the ex ta editing command:

A file named "tags" will be searched in the current directory
and in other implementation-dependent directories, is  used to locate tags
for this purpose (and for the ":t" interactive command), the format
of that file is expected to be that produced by the ctags utility,
and if such a file is unreadable for any reason, or the tag cannot
be found in the tags file, or tag text cannot be found in the file
indicated by the tags file, the behavior is the similar to that of
the vi utility.

The term "containing the tag" actually means "containing the line
associated with the tagstring in the tags file".

The "-t" option and the ":t" interactive command not only "write
the screenful containing the tag", but also remain within the more(1)
utility for further commands (unless "-e" is used).

Since there could be multiple possible "screenfuls" containing the
indicated tag, the screenful written is selected as if the command
"/tagtext" were used (that is, centered on the screen where possible
unless the line is less than one screenful away from the current position).
Basically, the behavior is similar to the behavior of vi.


Are these presumptions correct?


WG15 response for 9945-2:1993 
-----------------------------------



Paragraph 1:

This paragraph is a correct statement.

Paragraph 2:

The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can
be made between alternative implementations based on this.  This is being
referred to the sponsor.

Paragraph 3:

The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can
be made between alternative implementations based on this.  This is being
referred to the sponsor.

Paragraph 4: 

With the rationale on page 991, lines 9882-9885, this is a reasonable 
assumption.

Paragraph 5:

This is a reasonable assumption.

Paragraph 6:

The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can
be made between alternative implementations based on this.  This is being
referred to the sponsor.

Rationale for Interpretation:
-----------------------------
None.
 _____________________________________________________________________________