Subject: Re: This has GOT to be a bug in ksh...
To: NetBSD User's Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date: 06/18/2002 20:07:38
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: email@example.com (Greg A. Woods)
| Please define "work" in this context.
Does whatever any reasonable user would expect it to do - in this
case, list the filenames.
| As far as I'm concerned it works
| just fine with any and every version of "echo".
That's only because you're willing to subject sanity to your
definition of how echo is supposed to work.
| My assumption being of course that "echo" is a stand-in command in this
| example to demonstrate parameter handling and field splitting.
But when the echo in the loop is replaced by code that does some
real work, it would be entirely reasonable for the script to contain
$verbose && echo "Processing $file"
which works just fine with any reasonable version of echo which actually
implements an echo function, rather than being a badly named print.
With your definition of what echo should do, just how do you manage to
handle things like that?