[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DOS path
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: DOS path |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:03:58 -0800 (PST) |
> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:49:01 +0000
> From: John Poltorak <address@hidden>
> > Again I must point out that the behaviour of ksh's echo could be
> > considered broken; it requires an option to behave 'normally'.
>
> Is there a definitive view on this?
POSIX 1003.2-1992 says that the results of echo are undefined if the
first argument is '-n' or if any arguments contain a backslash.
POSIX 1003.1-2001 requires the System V behavior, in which '-n'
is not an option and in which escapes should be interpreted.
>
> The OS/2 porter of KSH considers that the default mode for ECHO should be
> to interpret escape characters rather than ignore them.
The OS/2 porter of KSH is correct; that's the only way to conform to
both 1003.2-1992 and 1003.1-2001.
Autoconf must be portable to older systems, though, so it should not
use either -n or backslashes.
(This is yet another reason for avoiding backslashes in file names. :-)
- DOS path, John Poltorak, 2002/02/13
- Re: DOS path, Paul Eggert, 2002/02/13
- Re: DOS path, Tim Van Holder, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, John Poltorak, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, Tim Van Holder, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, John Poltorak, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, Tim Van Holder, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, John Poltorak, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, Thomas E. Dickey, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path, Tim Van Holder, 2002/02/14
- Re: DOS path,
Paul Eggert <=