[ On Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 11:41:53 (+0100), Ben Harris wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: discrepency beteen /bin/echo and builtin echo of /bin/sh
>
> I don't care about minimal implementations.  I care about precisely what the
> standard specifies and what it does not specify.  It does not define
> "minimal implementations" and hence I do not care about them.

Then you need to get a grip about how real-world implementors actually
_use_ these fabled documents you hold in such unnaturally high regard.

POSIX talks about minimum requirements and allows for implementation
defined behaviour.  You seem to believe that it only allows the minimal
implementation (though indeed in this particular case with 'echo' it
seems there's at least one revision of POSIX 1003.2 which allows very
little deviation from what standard allows).  The minimal implentation
of "echo" in particular, as specified by any version of 1003.2 that I've
heard of to date, is pointless in the real world.  The implementation I
proposed, which is perfectly conformant with 1003.2 (original 1992), is
a practical and pragmatic real-world implementation.

To quote from the accepted and published NetBSD "goals" I remind you:

   NetBSD is also highly interoperable, implementing many standard APIs
   and network protocols, and emulating many other systems' ABIs.

 [[ .... ]] [NetBSD]

     * interoperates well with other systems,
     * conforms to open systems standards as much as is practical.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods@acm.org>;  <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;  <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>