Subject: Re: discrepency beteen /bin/echo and builtin echo of /bin/sh
To: None <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 06/13/2002 18:46:13
[ 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
> >> The interesting question is how we analyse the command-lines "echo -n foo"
> >> and "echo -e foo".  Specifically, are "-n" and "-e" options or operands? 
> >> How about in "echo -e -n foo" and "echo -n -e foo"?
> >
> >Why do you ask such silly questions?
> Because I want you to understand the problems I see in the 1003.2-1992
> definition of "echo".  To do that, I need to know how you read it, since I
> think it's ambiguous and I don't want to confuse you with arguments that
> don't apply to your reading.

I find no real ambiguity whatsoever in the POSIX 1003.2-1992 definition
of "echo", nor in The Single UNIX Standard Version 2's definition of
"echo".  At least to someone familiar with reading computer
specifications and who's first (and almost only) language is English,
those standards are very clearly and unambiguously worded.

>  Now please answer the question.

If my answer was not intelligible and meaningful to you then I am afraid
I do not know of any better way to put it.  I used the most concrete
demonstration of my reading that is possible within the context of your

								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <>;  <>;  <>
Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <>