[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools...
From: |
Chet Ramey |
Subject: |
Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools... |
Date: |
Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:28:37 -0500 |
> I'm willing to try the CVS versions of autoconf later on, but
> can't promise when I'll get to it. I can confirm, though, that
> the bug I'm running into only happened when I rebuilt bash and
> specified the --enable_xpg_default option.
You would have seen the same results had you specified the `-e' option
to echo. The behavior is consistent, and will remain so.
> It might be "late" to change the requirement to "\0" is required as
> the leading for all numeric constants, but as has been stated here, no
> application should be relying on "\1" being interpreted as "^A" if it
> is desired that it be portable.
I don't believe it's "too late", considering that you had to compile bash
with a non-default set of configuration options to encounter the problem.
However, I like consistency, and I believe that it's important to have
-e and the xpg_echo option produce identical output.
I don't favor being deliberately incompatible, though, unless there's a
compelling reason. This doesn't seem to measure up to that standard.
The remaining consideration is whether or not there's a significant
body of scripts out there that rely on the current behavior. If there
isn't, I would strongly consider the change to require a leading `0'
in octal constants. I don't think that \x introducing hex constants
is as big a problem (it may not be a problem at all).
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
( ``Discere est Dolere'' -- chet )
Live Strong. No day but today.
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU address@hidden http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., (continued)
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/21
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/21
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/21
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Henrik Nordstrom, 2006/03/21
- bad m4 quotation? (was: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools...), Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/27
- Re: bad m4 quotation? (was: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools...), Stepan Kasal, 2006/03/28
- Re: bad m4 quotation?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/28
- Re: bad m4 quotation?, Stepan Kasal, 2006/03/28
- Re: bad m4 quotation?, Stepan Kasal, 2006/03/29
- AX_PREFIX_CONFIG_H and m4 quoting (was: bad m4 quotation?), Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/30
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools...,
Chet Ramey <=
- Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Henrik Nordstrom, 2006/03/20
Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Andreas Schwab, 2006/03/22
Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Chet Ramey, 2006/03/28
Re: echo "enhancement" leads to confused legacy script tools..., Andreas Schwab, 2006/03/23