Re: [bug #18136] MC wont work with new bash-3.2 propeply with all directories.

[Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov gmx net>]

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 right
> > > > thing 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 ?