* Roland Rosenfeld said: > Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> wrote: > > > Before ash appeared, Debian/GNU Linux supported stuff like the > > function keyword, {} substitution, and a host of other things. That > > certainly did not give me any impetus to do those things in ash. Why > > should this be any different? > > I agree with you in the question of "echo -e", but I still have a -e is purely a cosmetical option as it stands now that we know that POSIX makes the escape sequences the default. What's annoying is the lack of an argument to switch the escapes OFF. > problem with "echo -n". We need some way to output a line without a > trailing linefeed from a /bin/sh script. So the question is, _how_ > this way should look like. Have a look at our policy, which printf is a solution, that's true, but most programmers shall continue to use echo -n for the sake of tradition and habit for one. > explicitly proposes to use "echo -n" in many examples like this: Not to mention the ash manpage which also has examples with "echo -n" [snip] > You told us to always use printf(1) as an alternative, but is this an > acceptable alternative? Can we be sure, that printf(1) is always > available (at the moment it located in /usr/bin, which makes it With (b)ash it's a non-issue - both have printf builtin. But the problem is not that printf is bad, but that lack of 'echo -n' is, at this moment, very bad and that removal of the argument is not justified by any standard. marek
Attachment:
pgpgYiu7uSUSL.pgp
Description: PGP signature