Jochen Roderburg wrote:
> Indeed there it is. Actually, I did not suspect a changelog in a directory > named > CWRU and had not looked there ;-) Sorry. It's always been there. > Let's see, if I understood it correct now: To adhere to the above mentioned > standards you no longer allow octal digits without leading zero in bash's > echo. > And you expect other applications which have problems with this change to > correct them at their end? Actually, I am discouraged that applications were not written to use the portable `printf'. Use of `echo' in portable applications has been deprecated for years. It's hindsight, of course, but had mc been written (or modified later) to use printf, it would not need the shell-specific code it apparently now contains. > Btw, funny thing in my observed case (Midnight Commander) is that according to > the comments around the code where it is used this form is explicitly choosen > for the bash case, because older bash versions could *not* handle the variant > with leading zeroes ;-) The standards evolve, and bash evolves with them. Previous editions of POSIX moved from "nothing, but if the first argument is -n, the results are implementation defined" to "no options, but the interpretation of backslash characters in the arguments is implementation defined", to "no options, and you have to interpret this set of backslash escapes for XSI conformance". The final (current) set of conditions is what the POSIX conformance test looks for. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer Live Strong. No day but today. Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ _______________________________________________ Bug-bash mailing list Bug-bash@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-bash