Re: LF (was Re: CR/LF)
> On Sun, 2022-12-11 at 12:48 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 11:48:23AM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2022-12-11 at 08:54 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 08:16:35AM +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > That said. Greg, I was also shaken by your roaring tone.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, well, he was told the same thing, repeatedly, by multiple
> > > > people, and somehow he managed to ignore every single instance
> > > > of it.
> > >
> > > That is not true at all.
> >
> > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00274.html>:
> >
> > Try echo -n ${TEST} at the end.
>
>
> My reply, from yesterday, to that is here:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00277.html
>
>
> >
> > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00275.html>:
> >
> > The second echo command (the local one) produces a newline.
> > Since you did not give it any parameters, that's all it produces.
>
>
> In that same email you stated "It does not produce a carriage return,
> unless you're on Windows." and I knew I wasn't on Windows so that
> couldn't be the issue. At that time I did not know that it was
> impossible for you to incorrectly assume that someone else was doing
> someone different than what you knew them to be doing. :)
>
> >
> > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/12/msg00279.html>:
> >
> > Because the second echo in the first line does not have a -n.
> >
> > All the ssh stuff is superfluous.
> >
>
> I did read that email yesterday, and as with the earlier one, the -n
> was not a workable solution. Nit: It is quite telling that Charles
> mentioned the superfluous text, which you quoted above, Greg, yet you
> were also bemoaning around the same time saying "I'm waiting for the
> question to change, and then that one will be relevant". It's like no
> question is good enough for some folks on debian-user@. I'll note
> that my question remains unchanged, and a workable answer has been
> provided.
>
> >
> > Those are the direct responses to your initial message. I didn't
> > even have to go beyond the first layer of replies to get THREE
> > instances of people telling you the SAME thing -- that your "extra
> > newline" was being produced by your echo command.
>
> As you can see above, I had already read and responded appropriately,
> yesterday. Read on for details of the solution that does work.
>
> >
> > I'm fairly sure there are more instances in the next layers of
> > replies.
>
> Please do share if you are certain they exist.
>
> >
> > All of them are telling you the SAME THING. You just can't hear it.
>
> Nice, more snark. I'll say it the final time, so that you can see
> it, -n will not work (and I know you know this).
You're misunderstanding what Greg's saying, again. He's not saying you
were given working solutions three times, he's saying you were told at
least three times that echo without -n will always produce a newline.
> The thing that does work is dumping the output to a TXT file and
> reading the TXT file elsewhere (instead of using a variable). You,
> Greg, introduced that possible use-case in the very same email where
> you berated me for not reading the answers yet. Very odd how your
> head works. ;)
Also very odd how yours works. Strange how different people's minds
work in somewhat different ways, and usually wise to take account of
that, especially when you're the one asking for help.
> All the best,
>
> -Jim P.
>
Reply to: