A typical pattern I've repeatedly seen in various shapes and forms: Q: [very explicit title about F in context X] I'm specifically not asking about F in cont

A typical pattern I've repeatedly seen in various shapes and forms: Q: [very explicit title about F in context X] I'm specifically not asking about F in context Y which I know about but is irrelevant; I'm specifically not asking about libT which may accept it in accordance with standard U; instead, in context X, is F working for libS? A1 [100+] [+50 bounty] [auto-accepted] [date d]: "it works" + long winded answer about decontextualised substring of F proposition working for libS in context Y Comment 1: this is not the correct answer, see A15 Comment 2: complaint that A15 note about U is from a second hand site so answer is warrant of discredit [even though authoritative docs about U are not publicly available] A2 through A7 [30+]: "it works" (rehash of A1, posted within d+[1..365]) A8 [30+]: Q is a dupe, see this answer [link to question and answer about libS in context Y] A9 through A14 [30+]: "it works" (gives example for libT, which behaves differently) A14 through A17 [30+]: "it works" (gives example of standard U, which libS does not comply with) A15 [5] [d+5]: Q being explicit about F for libS in context X and explicitly _not_ about context Y, let's address it for libS in context X: *it does not work* because foo (link to libS doc || source code || example). Tangent for the sake of completeness, context X is irrelevant because bar is orthogonal to foo + context Y. standard U does not apply because libS is not compliant [quote or link about U] Comment 1: this is the correct answer Comment 2 [d+1095]: answer is invalid because libS vN+1 has just been released and adds F in context X A16+ [<0]: completely haphazard lottery answers