* Herbert Xu said: > On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 09:39:00PM +0200, Sven Rudolph wrote: > > > > Did we decide to follow Single Unix Specification. I thought we were > > on POSIX, and my draft allows -n (implementation defined). > > If it's implementation defined that means echo is also allowed to not support > any options at all. So if you were going to write a script that should work > on all POSIX compliant shells, you must not use options and escape codes. That's about a *script*, we're talking about the *shell* which is supposed to provide every capability in the standard. This means the echo command should support both arguments. Whether the script programmer uses them or not - it's his problem, shell should support it. > > The Single Unix Specification explicitely forbids BSD heritage while > > it standardises the SYSV way. > > Not really, unless POSIX enforces the options and escape codes, there is > no way to use them portably. So printf is still the way to go for escape > codes and -n. Still, what I said above applies here. Supporting the params in the shell's builtin is NOT breaking the standard or making the shell non-portable. Shell itself doesn't use the builtin, the scripts do. And scripts are written by people who make decisions whether their script is to be portable or not. marek
Attachment:
pgp4eEXms_rfQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature