Backslashed escape sequences

[Alain M.]

This Bash subject is really controversial. As was well explained by Rob, 
non-bash behaviour will break many things, and apparently so will the 
reverse.

So... what about meking it a configurable feature? I'd feel much better 
that way

just my 2c,
Alain


Roy Marples escreveu:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 05:20 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> I'm not sure (vda) how you'll adopt "their" behavior, as "they" differ.
>>> It comes down to scope; I don't think BusyBox has ever adopted bash as a
>>> standard to follow,
>> Yes, it has.
> 
> No, busybox has adopted a few shells, of which ash is probably the most
> POSIX compliant one. busybox has never adopted bash.
> 
>> Now these were mostly old versions of bash.  I stopped paying attention to 
>> anything that went in after 2.04b.  But things like curly bracket file 
>> listing syntax, or echo needing -e?  You encounter them all over the place in 
>> Linux.
>>
>> (And note that if you use dash, echo doesn't support options at all.  
>> No "echo -e" or "echo -n".  Yeah, that breaks things.)
> 
> Such scripts should use #!/bin/bash instead of #!/bin/sh.
> If you want bash features then explicitly use bash. If you want bash
> features in /bin/sh then get the The Open Group to adopt them :)
> 
>> I have several scripts that use \e as the start of ansi escape sequences, by 
>> the way.  (Octal's a bit 1970's for my tastes...)
> 
> Again, suggest your idea to the The Open Group or just use bash.
> 
> I like the ability to use /bin/sh so my scripts work on default base
> systems such as NetBSD where bash not available by default.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Roy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
> 
>