On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>
> Not for this ("echo -e" is a dead issue, though some of the discussion there
> touches on other problems). But it would be reasonable to expect it to fix
> the syntax errors. Before rushing off to change things to accommodate bash
> 3.2, it's worth checking if the fix will work with other shells.
The fix which Leonard proposes would not affect the other supported
shells. Look at subshell_name_quote() in subshell.c. I am beginning
to wonther whether do we really want to escape the characters
using "echo" or "printf".
_______________________________________________
Mc-devel mailing list
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/mc-devel
