ixable in time for
> 4.3 ?
>
> --Stijn
>
> - Forwarded message from "Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: tcs
On Mar 14, 11:24pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Andrey A. Chernov") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: tcsh 6.10.00 echo;echo;echo; bug with fix
With the new information about solaris having fixed this, I've decided
against keeping compatibility and just applying the fix you proposed.
christos
|
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 09:54:32 -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Yeah, that is a good idea. I think that I'll add an echo_style "bsdbug",
> and leave the default alone.
Even if we left old default in place (which I personally not like), old
code have signal handler bug, we can't just "return" fr
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 18:41:37 +0100, Daniel Rock wrote:
> David Malone schrieb:
> >
> > > echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
> > > tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
> > > csh echo prints?
> >
> > Solaris, AIX and HPUX a
David Malone schrieb:
>
> > echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
> > tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
> > csh echo prints?
>
> Solaris, AIX and HPUX all print nothing. I guess all csh versions
> are likely to be BSD dervied
I agree with Andrey -- although this has the possibility of breaking
old scripts that expect no output from echoing an empty variable.
Since the DEC/OSF system update script only works with their ancient
/bin/sh (and not with the XPG4 sh) I wouldn't be surprised to find
such scripts out there...
On Mar 14, 2:41pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Malone) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: tcsh 6.10.00 echo;echo;echo; bug with fix
| > echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
| > tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
| > csh ec
> echo is more like as external command, even in its internal form it
> tends to be compatible even with SysV-isms. What non-BSD grown (i.e. SysV)
> csh echo prints?
Solaris, AIX and HPUX all print nothing. I guess all csh versions
are likely to be BSD dervied, so there is likely to be a consista
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 14:10:06 +, David Malone wrote:
> Will it change what happens if you do:
>
> set null=""
> echo $null
>
> (this produces nothing in "traditional" tcsh and csh)?
It will change.
> I guess we should leave it up to the tcsh folks. There are other
> internal
> Since internal 'echo' does nothing, it _not_ used in any old csh scripts,
> while 'echo ""' does the same thing in both old and new variants, so old
> scripts will works in the same way.
Will it change what happens if you do:
set null=""
echo $null
(this produces nothing in "t
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 15:46:39 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:41:09 +, David Malone wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:49AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
> > > a long time!
>
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:41:09 +, David Malone wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:49AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> > Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
> > a long time!
>
> AFAIK, this isn't a bug. It's what csh has always done. (It's what
> IB
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 07:52:49AM -0500, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
> a long time!
AFAIK, this isn't a bug. It's what csh has always done. (It's what
IBM and Sun's csh do anyway...) To echo a newline in csh you do
'echo ""'.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
: Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
I am.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 01:26:47PM +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
On the FreeBSD end it is imp.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" i
On Mar 13, 1:19pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Andrey A. Chernov") wrote:
-- Subject: tcsh 6.10.00 echo;echo;echo; bug with fix
Thanks so much! I wonder how come this bug remained unnoticed for such
a long time!
christos
| echo;echo;echo; must output 3 new lines but currently not due to obv
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:41:26 +0100, Johan Karlsson wrote:
> At Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:26:47 +0300, "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
>
> Don't know but tcsh is contibified and from
> /usr/src/contrib/tcsh/README
>
> 12) PLEASE send any bug reports (and fixes), code
At Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:26:47 +0300, "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
Don't know but tcsh is contibified and from
/usr/src/contrib/tcsh/README
12) PLEASE send any bug reports (and fixes), code for new features,
comments, questions, etc. (even flames) to:
Who is our tcsh maintainer now?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 13:19:44 +0300, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> echo;echo;echo; must output 3 new lines but currently not due to obvious
> bug:
>
> --- sh.func.c.bak Fri Dec 1 01:18:27 2000
> +++ sh.func.c Tue Mar 13 13:04:54 2001
> @@ -1147,7 +1147,7 @@
>
echo;echo;echo; must output 3 new lines but currently not due to obvious
bug:
--- sh.func.c.bak Fri Dec 1 01:18:27 2000
+++ sh.func.c Tue Mar 13 13:04:54 2001
@@ -1147,7 +1147,7 @@
#endif /* BSDSIGS */
v++;
if (*v == 0)
- return;
+ goto done;
gflag = 0, tglob(
20 matches
Mail list logo
