On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:41:42 -0600 (MDT), Jon Trulson wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2012, Douglas Mencken wrote:
>>
>>>> I am pretty sure that 'echo -n' and 'echo -e' work everywhere. Why
>>>> not use those instead?
>>>
>>> printf is available everywhere; "echo -n" is an exotic, "echo -e" is
>>> much more exotic
>>>
>>
>> No, I have yet to see a system where echo -n/-e was not supported,
>> even on ancient systems.
>>
>> I had thought printf was a bash addition. ksh supports print, but
>> even there -n/-e for echo works..
>
> printf is POSIX. Whether that's a separate utility or a shell built-in
> is left up to the implementation.
>
> echo is impossible to be used portably, as stated in the "APPLICATION
> USAGE" section on echo. Therefore, POSIX recommends always using
> printf(1).
>
>
> Also, from RATIONALE:
So the general consensus is that printf is ok? That's all I needed -
I've always used echo on multiple systems without issue, hence my
hesitation at such a change.
When in doubt, I am going to choose the coutious approach. So - no
one objects to applying the original patch?
--
Jon Trulson
"If the Martian rope-a-dope don't get him, he'll get himself, he'll
come in too fast and punch himself out."
- one of my brothers, referring to the Curiosity landing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
