Re: conflict of separator and missing

[<pl...@pi...>]

On 16/06/16 17:23, sfeam wrote:


> -   The comparison is to a string, not a numerical value, so -99.00 ne -99.0 ne -99
Sounds reasonable. From the gnuplot POV it is a missing *string* ; if 
the cvs is output by a spreadsheet or other software it seems reasonable 
to expect consistent string formatting ( although Excel could have 
different cell formats, that is probably too much to try and anticipate.


 >-   Leading whitespace is ignore but trailing whitespace is not.

Seems inconsistent. Was this a programming convenience for minimal 
coding changes or is there a functional logic behind this?

 > ... and requires that the next character is a field-terminator.

I presume field-terminator.means FS or EOL. Does this cater for WS at 
end of line without an explicit FS, or does this fall foul of previous 
point?

Thanks.  Peter.