On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote: > 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).
Ok. Since I am not native english speaker I cannot judge whether he is recommending it or not. In any case I can see why keeping the old behaviour of 'echo' is important for large scripts, however what we have in MC is nothing as big. I just feel that what Leonard is proposing is a hack and not an actual solution. > Anyway - perhaps 3.3 (I'm seeing too many reports of syntax errors in > existing scripts to bother with 3.2.x). Does this mean that you think that bash 3.3 will reinstantiate the old behaviour ? _______________________________________________ Mc-devel mailing list http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
