On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 08:09:13PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 10:06:24PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Let me state once again, this has no bearing whatsoever over the proposed > > change in policy and my question about whether escape codes/-e are to be > > mentioned or not. It is for purely pendantic value. > > I think it's an important point, because getting it wrong would have > all sorts of nasty implications.
But do you agree that with your current proposal, you still have to fix all scripts that use -e/escape codes? > Not precisely -- it means that there are no options required > by POSIX. > > If we went with your interpretation, it would violate POSIX to > provide any options for a command which weren't present in the > POSIX synopsis. I would agree with you on this point for anything but echo. I don't think this reasoning applies here given what's in the Operands section and what the rationale is. It seems to be clear to me that the intention was to not allow any options, i.e., to make sure that all implementations of echo echo all of its arguments unless the first operand was -n. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
