any reason to *not* support hex escapes?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Rich Felker wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 12:34:00PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:36:12AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >
> > > >libbb/process_escape_sequence.c:
> > > >--------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >#define WANT_HEX_ESCAPES 1
> > > >...
> > > >#ifdef WANT_HEX_ESCAPES ...
> > > >
> > > >etc etc.
> > > >
> > > >  any reason to not support this feature unconditionally?
> > >
> > > libbb/Config.in ?
> > >
> > > Not sure if these are worth exposing in the menu-thing. Leaving
> > > them in the file so one can hand-tweak if needed is about as
> > > good for me but admittedly limits the number of people who may
> > > turn it off if they know that they will not need it.
> >
> > but is there any obvious reason why someone would explicitly *not*
> > want that feature in the first place?
>
> Yes, so nonportable scripts will fail rather than silently working
> and thus can be found/fixed when GNU users add GNU crap to them. :)

in that case, based on earlier discussions on this list, it should be
user-selectable, no?

rday