[wwader]

Hey! quite accurate, it was a mix of i just wanted to try to see how hard it would be and wanted to know more about jq. I guess it has limited practical use other than as a learning tool. But i've used it to prototype features for "original" jq like how eval could work, regex literals, some object literal syntax enhancements etc. Also i found a bunch of bugs and confusing behaviours in jq along the way :)

btw i didn't follow what you mean by "overlooked the 2 characters"?

[afiori]

I guess they intended to say that the reference to fq was very short, so people might have missed it while reading

[usr1106]

Oh oh, jq has bugs..., I hope you reported them. I wondered more than once whether I could trust the results of my jq invocations.

Well, to be fair the probability that my input data or my jq code has bugs might even be higher...

Of course all software has bugs, but I guess most of us have never been bitten by a gcc or Python interpreter bug.

Yeah, the 2 characters deferred to the fq name. The jqjq README has a link, however without mentioning what it is about.

[wwader]

> Oh oh, jq has bugs..., I hope you reported them. I wondered more than once whether I could trust the results of my jq invocations.

Yes report, and i'm one of the jq maintainers now a days :) and i think you can trust the result if your doing common things. The bugs i've encountered have usually been in exotic parts, ex https://github.com/jqlang/jq/issues/3128