cat -v?

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 17 April 2006 12:23 pm, Paul Fox wrote:
>  > Im not really religious about standards and i read somewhere that cat
>  > -v is not a good thing. Maybe its better to fix that package and drop
>
> perhaps you were thinking of rob pike's famous "cat -v considered
> harmful" talk, from over 20 years ago:
>     http://gaul.org/files/cat_-v_considered_harmful.html
>
> but that was a purely philosophical argument -- an argument which
> should certainly guide new development, but which can't really
> alter widely-used standard practices.
>
> paul
> =---------------------
>  paul fox, pgf at brightstareng.com


Ok, cat -v is a good thing, and we should have it.  (And -eEtT although the 
whole mess should CONFIG out down to the code we have now.)

Here's where I got blocked on that: for some reason, -funsigned-char is having 
no effect on my system, and I'd like to figure out why.

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: catv.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 3851 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20060417/40ad5e71/attachment.bin