On Jul 27, 2012 8:45 PM, "Miguel de Benito Delgado" <m.debenit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So, it seems safe to replace all occurences of "echo -n " with "printf > ", what about speed or weird side effects?
Not quite... printf "%s" The %s should repeat for all args > > Search and replace is our friend, people... Aye > ________________ > Miguel de Benito. > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Sam Liddicott <s...@liddicott.com> wrote: > > Your well expressed comments do not fit the question. > > > > I wonder if you realised that printf is a shell built-in command with better > > portability than echo, and here does not refer to the C library. > > > > Sam > > > > On Jul 25, 2012 8:04 PM, "Adrian S." <adrian.u.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I am against making it a requirement. I think plugins are to be > >> mantained, and if the one who writes them knows C, he can write them > >> in C; if he knows bash; he could write them in bash. > >> > >> If compatibility issues were the main concern, we could let people > >> know about the caveats of using each programming language, and some > >> guidelines about what kinds of plugins are guaranteed or more likely > >> to work in all environments... I am afraid that, in that case, any > >> *nix shell would not meet the crossplatform criteria. > >> > >> People would debate on "We suggests that you..." vs "We demand that > >> you..."; but, either way, both could agree on "We want to make you > >> aware of...". > >> > >> I am familiar with the issue, since a long time ago there was a push > >> to remove all the > >> echo -ne > >> and then only use standard shell techniques... I don't think it > >> worked well. And then ubuntu make a softlink from /usr/bin/sh to > >> /usr/bin/dash instead of /usr/bin/bash; which all of a sudden broke a > >> lot of plugings, because they were changed to #!/bin/bash.. At some > >> point most using shells needed bash, but had as header !#/bin/sh.... > >> in the plugin > >> > >> And we spend time wondering what happened... The point was: They > >> needed bash, so they should have #!/bin/bash, not #!/bin/sh... > >> > >> My point is: Some plugins requrie bash. If we only change the "echo > >> -ne" we are still not guraranteed to have any issues for other > >> reasons. The way to do it is to tell the developper... Or at least > >> make him or her aware of the issue... Not to force him to use a > >> particular language or a particular shell. > >> > >> A tool or a script that transform each using echo -ne, could be made, > >> but someone must be responsable of mantaining it... Certainly, if the > >> one who wrote the plugin used bash, this would be a requirement for > >> his or her plugin. > >> > >> Soon, though, we will have a model for all plugins when the mathemagix > >> plugin becomes the model for all other plugins and the suggested way > >> in which plugins should be written and docummented to assure > >> portability. > >> > >> Those are my two cents. > >> > >> Peace. > >> -Adrian. > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Sam Liddicott <s...@liddicott.com> wrote: > >> > He is correct to advocate printf. There is an entry in the bash FAQ in > >> > relation to portable programming that endorses his view. > >> > > >> > Sam > >> > > >> > On Jul 25, 2012 5:37 PM, "Miguel de Benito Delgado" > >> > <m.debenito.delg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Any thoughts on this anyone? I know very little about shell > >> >> compatibility issues.. > >> >> ________________ > >> >> Miguel de Benito. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Bernd Losert <berndlos...@gmail.com > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > I am not sure if this has been pointed out or not, but a lot of the > >> >> > plugin code in src/plugins/*/bin/tm_* uses the echo command in such a > >> >> > way that it only works correctly if your shell is bash. I use zsh as > >> >> > my shell and when I run something like xypic for example, I always > >> >> > get > >> >> > these -n when the session starts. To avoid this issue, I suggest > >> >> > rewriting anything with echo with printf instead as the behavior of > >> >> > printf is the same across *NIX systems, unlike with echo. > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Bernd > >> >> > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > Texmacs-dev mailing list > >> >> > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > >> >> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Texmacs-dev mailing list > >> >> Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Texmacs-dev mailing list > >> > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > >> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Texmacs-dev mailing list > >> Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Texmacs-dev mailing list > > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
_______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
