On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 5:17 AM, L A Walsh <b...@tlinx.org> wrote:
> Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 6/18/17 6:59 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
>>> Chet Ramey wrote:
>>>> Bash has always stripped NULL bytes. Now it tells you it's doing it.
>>> Why? Did I toggle a flag asking for the warning? Seems like it
>>> was sorta sprung on users w/no way to disable it.
>> Users asked why bash transformed input without warning, even though it
>> had been doing that it's entire lifetime. A warning is appropriate.
> Maybe - but links to, at least, 2-3 users who filed bug reports about this
> problem in bug-bash would be appropriate as well to justify the inclusion
> of the text.
> I don't recall it ever coming up until the warning message was discussed
> as being unwelcome. So please, I'd like to see the bug-report filings
> where this
>>> But things are changing -- people have asked for zero-terminated
>>> and readarrays. More unix utils are offering NUL termination as an
>>> because newlines alone don't cut it in some instances.
>> And bash provides mechanisms to deal with the relatively few use cases
>> where it is a problem.
>> Recall that the only thing that has changed is that bash now provides a
>> warning about what it's doing.
> Oh? I want to read in a value from the registry where something may have
> after the data. Please tell me the mechanism to read this in w/no warnings
> that won't silence more serious cases of zero's other than at the end of
> I want to see the hyperlinks to archived bug-discussions on bug-bash where
> users complained about this and where it was at the end of a string where
> they expected to be able to read past a binary-0 in the input.
> I know I would have like the ability to read binary data into to a var that
> might "include a NUL", but I don't recall ever complaining about
> NUL's being trimmed -- and it was drummed home to me how the null's were
> end of the string -- not how bash read everything but nulls from input.
I'm sorry to say that your behavior on this list is just not acceptable.
If you were on IRC I would have banned you much earlier, yet after all
these years of trolling the list, Chet is going to great length to
explain the rationale of his choices while you keep whining for the
shell to just do what you want in the random particular case you
happen to work at the moment.
Your response: you accuse him to lie to you.
I don't think this is constructive in any way and I'm sure
that, even if Chet has probably experienced this kind of online
situation more than most, it's not a pleasant one.