On 8/15/19 2:36 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> On 8/14/19 3:10 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 8/14/19 7:01 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it be just
>>>
>>> -n
>>
>> No, because 'echo' is one of the few exceptions to the rule, in that
>> POSIX specifically mandates that it NOT recognize
On 8/14/19 3:10 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 8/14/19 7:01 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
Shouldn't it be just
-n
No, because 'echo' is one of the few exceptions to the rule, in that
POSIX specifically mandates that it NOT recognize -- as an
end-of-options marker.
But then the "-n" shouldn't
On 8/14/19 10:23 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
2019-08-14 09:28:22 -0700, Kaz Kylheku (Coreutils):
[...]
According to POSIX, echo doesn't take options. It is specified
that "Implementations shall not support any options."
(We have options, though, so things are complicated.)
[...]
The POSIX
On 2019-08-15 00:53, Harald Dunkel wrote:
IMHO they should have kept the "no args allowed" for echo
("in the late 70s") and should have introduced a new tool
"eecho" instead.
Well, new tool for printing was introduced under the name "printf".
On 2019-08-13 11:45 p.m., Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 8/13/19 8:10 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
I'd only like to see following additional changes:
- make the script callable from an arbitrary directory, i.e.,
make the file name of the patches relative to the script, and
- mention to adjust
2019-08-15 07:29:37 -0700, Kaz Kylheku (Coreutils):
> On 2019-08-15 00:53, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > IMHO they should have kept the "no args allowed" for echo
> > ("in the late 70s") and should have introduced a new tool
> > "eecho" instead.
>
> Well, new tool for printing was introduced under the
