Bug#48247: echo -n
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:06:24PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Let me state once again, this has no bearing whatsoever over the proposed
> > > change in policy and my question about whether escape codes/-e are to be
> > > mentioned or not. It is for purely pendantic value.
On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 08:09:13PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I think it's an important point, because getting it wrong would have
> > all sorts of nasty implications.
On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 10:11:50AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> But do you agree that with your current proposal, you still have to fix all
> scripts that use -e/escape codes?
Like I said before, I don't think this issue is relevant to debian
policy. People can fix them, or not, depending on circumstances.
> > Not precisely -- it means that there are no options required
> > by POSIX.
> >
> > If we went with your interpretation, it would violate POSIX to
> > provide any options for a command which weren't present in the
> > POSIX synopsis.
>
> I would agree with you on this point for anything but echo. I don't think
> this reasoning applies here given what's in the Operands section and what
> the rationale is. It seems to be clear to me that the intention was to not
> allow any options, i.e., to make sure that all implementations of echo echo
> all of its arguments unless the first operand was -n.
I would agree with you on this point except that's not what POSIX says.
--
Raul
Reply to: