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 rightthing 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 ?