Subject: Re: which echo.c would you choose?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/30/1999 00:21:12
In message <199911300608.BAA25792@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>, der Mouse write
>- Use strcmp for -n. Reason: efficiency difference is lost in the
> noise, so the maintainability advantage takes over.
I'd rather see "use something very similar to getopt", because that's more
canonical, although I don't know what echo is *supposed* to do with "--".
>- Skip all the (void) casts. This is one of the cases in which I
> entirely agree with Richard Stallman: there is nothing wrong with
> ignoring return values, and any tool that thinks otherwise should be
> ignored or configured into saner behavior. (As an example of this
> sort of configuration, I have a wrapper for lint that filters out
> messages that I have found are almost uniformly useless noise.)
I would support that one.
>If I had to choose among only the four programs presented, I would
>probably pick B, unless handling \c were important, in which case A
>would be the only candidate on simple functionality grounds.
I would say that '\c' is moderately-useful, although not stunningly necessary.
It's a SYSV'ism, but it's a common enough guess for shell scripts that it
might as well be supported.