Thanks to everyone participating in this discussion. I really like all this attention to detail.
Program \e == \033 ? --------------------------------------- bash echo yes bash printf yes coreutils echo no coreutils printf no I'm not sure (vda) how you'll adopt "their" behavior, as "they" differ. It comes down to scope; I don't think BusyBox has ever adopted bash as a standard to follow, but it does try to follow coreutils reasonably closely. This weighs against my suggestion to include \e, but I can try to live with \033 when portability needs to be considered. (I think ANSI should have included "\e" to to mean "\033" all the way back in C89, but they didn't, and now their mess has leaked over other programs everywhere.) Dr. Hughes - Your suggestion is interesting and portable, but only to a point. /bin/echo will be available in single-user mode and on smaller systems, but /usr/bin/printf might be unavailable. Marc On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > Can you push bash and coreutils (echo and prints utilities in particular) > to decide what is the right thing to do? > > busybox will then just adopt their behavior. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
