Re: [Texmacs-dev] Plugins and the echo command

[Sam Liddicott]

On Jul 27, 2012 8:45 PM, "Miguel de Benito Delgado" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> So, it seems safe to replace all occurences of "echo -n " with "printf
> ", what about speed or weird side effects?

Not quite...

printf "%s"

The %s should repeat for all args

>
> Search and replace is our friend, people...

Aye
> ________________
> Miguel de  Benito.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Sam Liddicott <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Your well expressed comments do not fit the question.
> >
> > I wonder if you realised that printf is a shell built-in command with better
> > portability than echo, and here does not refer to the C library.
> >
> > Sam
> >
> > On Jul 25, 2012 8:04 PM, "Adrian S." <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am against making it a requirement.  I think plugins are to be
> >> mantained, and if the one who writes  them knows C, he can write them
> >> in C; if he knows bash; he could write them in bash.
> >>
> >> If compatibility issues were the main concern, we could let people
> >> know about the caveats of using each programming language, and some
> >> guidelines about what kinds of plugins are guaranteed or more likely
> >> to work in all environments... I am afraid that, in that case, any
> >> *nix shell would not meet the crossplatform criteria.
> >>
> >> People would debate  on  "We suggests that you..." vs "We demand that
> >> you..."; but, either way, both could agree on  "We want to make you
> >> aware of...".
> >>
> >> I am familiar with the issue, since a long time ago there was a push
> >> to remove all the
> >> echo -ne
> >> and then only use standard shell techniques...  I don't think it
> >> worked well. And then ubuntu make a softlink from /usr/bin/sh to
> >> /usr/bin/dash instead of /usr/bin/bash; which all of a sudden broke a
> >> lot of plugings, because they were changed to #!/bin/bash.. At some
> >> point most using shells needed bash, but had as header !#/bin/sh....
> >> in the plugin
> >>
> >>   And we spend time wondering what happened...  The point was: They
> >> needed bash, so they should have #!/bin/bash, not #!/bin/sh...
> >>
> >> My point is: Some plugins requrie bash.  If we only change the "echo
> >> -ne" we are still not guraranteed to have any issues for other
> >> reasons.  The way to do it is to tell the developper... Or at least
> >> make him or her aware of the issue... Not to force him to use a
> >> particular language or a particular shell.
> >>
> >> A tool or a script that transform each using echo -ne, could be made,
> >> but someone must be responsable of mantaining it...  Certainly, if the
> >> one who wrote the plugin used bash, this would be a requirement for
> >> his or her plugin.
> >>
> >> Soon, though, we will have a model for all plugins when the mathemagix
> >> plugin becomes the model for all other plugins and the suggested way
> >> in which plugins should be written and docummented to assure
> >> portability.
> >>
> >> Those are my two cents.
> >>
> >> Peace.
> >> -Adrian.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Sam Liddicott <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > He is correct to advocate printf. There is an entry in the bash FAQ in
> >> > relation to portable programming that endorses his view.
> >> >
> >> > Sam
> >> >
> >> > On Jul 25, 2012 5:37 PM, "Miguel de Benito Delgado"
> >> > <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Any thoughts on this anyone? I know very little about shell
> >> >> compatibility issues..
> >> >> ________________
> >> >> Miguel de  Benito.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Bernd Losert <address@hidden>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I am not sure if this has been pointed out or not, but a lot of the
> >> >> > plugin code in src/plugins/*/bin/tm_* uses the echo command in such a
> >> >> > way that it only works correctly if your shell is bash. I use zsh as
> >> >> > my shell and when I run something like xypic for example, I always
> >> >> > get
> >> >> > these -n when the session starts. To avoid this issue, I suggest
> >> >> > rewriting anything with echo with printf instead as the behavior of
> >> >> > printf is the same across *NIX systems, unlike with echo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Bernd
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Texmacs-dev mailing list
> >> >> > address@hidden
> >> >> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> >> >> address@hidden
> >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Texmacs-dev mailing list
> >> > address@hidden
> >> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> >> address@hidden
> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Texmacs-dev mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Texmacs-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev