Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!udel!rochester!rit!cci632!tvf
From: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Possible bug in SunOS System V echo?
Message-ID: <35936@cci632.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 90 20:15:54 GMT
References: <4852@helios.TAMU.EDU> <12545@smoke.BRL.MIL> <35818@cci632.UUCP> <12561@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Reply-To: tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer)
Organization: Computer Consoles, Inc., An STC Icon, Rochester, NY
Lines: 24

In article <12561@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>In article <35818@cci632.UUCP> tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) writes:
>>I have a better idea - why not just build an echo that understands all the
>>Berkeley and System V stuff?
>
>Because the behaviors are incompatible!  How should
>	echo 'foo\n'
>work?  You get different answers from BSD and SysV variants of "echo".

I'll give you that point, but I still feel that a transition "echo" will add
to the confusion.

I'll refine my point - Why not just build an echo that supports as many of
both the System V and Berkeley features as possible?  Where there are
conflicts (such as noted above), let's get some "Smart Group of People" (a
UNIX standards committee? :-) ) choose one (going into real dangerous ground
here: strikes me that the biggest pain with the two echos is the '-n' versus
'\c' problem, and as other people have noted, echos have been implemented
that support both).
-- 
Thomas V. Frauenhofer	...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!swamps!!frau!tvf *or*
...!uunet!atexnet!kodak!swamps!frau!tvf (tvf@frau, tvf@cci632)
"What's a gourmand?  I'll tell you, he's a P-I-G pig!"
                                       - Justin Wilson