tele wrote:
> Maybe we did not understand.
> I don't want change old definitions but create new option for wc or echo,
> because this above examples not make logic sense,
What would such an option do?
> ( and it I want fix, however with sed is also fixed )
Your original message asked if "echo |
tag 20954 + notabug
close 20954
thanks
Maybe we did not understand.
I don't want change old definitions but create new option for wc or echo,
because this above examples not make logic sense,
( and it I want fix, however with sed is also fixed )
however now Iunderstand that they work correctly
tele wrote:
> "echo" gives in new line,
Yes.
> "echo -n" subtracts 1 line,
echo -n is non-portable and shouldn't be used.
echo -n suppresses emitting a trailing newline.
Note that in both of these cases you are using the shell's internal
builtin echo and not the coreutils echo. They behave th
tag 20954 + notabug
close 20954
thanks
tele wrote:
Hi!
Hi!
From terminal:
$ a="" ; echo $s | wc -l
1
Do you mean $a instead of $s? Either way is the same though assuming
$s is empty too.
- Yes, my mistake :-)
Should be 0 , yes ?
No. Should be 1. You have forgotten about the ne
2015-07-01 19:41:00 -0600, Bob Proulx:
[...]
> > $ a="" ; echo $s | wc -l
> > 1
[...]
> No. Should be 1. You have forgotten about the newline at the end of
> the command. The echo will terminate with a newline.
[...]
Leaving a variable unquoted will also cause the shell to apply
the split+glob
tag 20954 + notabug
close 20954
thanks
tele wrote:
> Hi!
Hi! :-)
> From terminal:
>
> $ a="" ; echo $s | wc -l
> 1
Do you mean $a instead of $s? Either way is the same though assuming
$s is empty too.
> Should be 0 , yes ?
No. Should be 1. You have forgotten about the newline at the end o
Hi!
From terminal:
$ a="" ; echo $s | wc -l
1
Should be 0 , yes ?
