On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: > On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote: >> >>>> Yes, I read that comment. However I'm not prepared to start breaking the >>>> functionality of shells that I never use. >>> >>> This is a rather strange statement. As a developer you should try to >>> go beyond your personal preferences. Changes to the subshell shall be >>> tested with all supported shells and on as many platforms as possible. >>>> From Chet Ramey's statement it is clear that using printf is the right >>> thing to do. >> >> That's his statement. Jim Meyering's comment is more reasonable. > > His comment is related to coreutils and not bash. Anyway, he still > agrees that "printf" should be used. If this is the way to go why > shall we wait ?
He's recommending it for new scripts, not recommending that one rewrite existing scripts (and by noting that other shells retain the existing treatment, is pointing out a problem). Anyway - perhaps 3.3 (I'm seeing too many reports of syntax errors in existing scripts to bother with 3.2.x). -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
