Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Well, it is even worse because some versions of echo automatically
> > interpret backslashes, so it would have to be \\x. I am thinking we
> > should just leave it as I have it now, unless we want to use 'awk' or
> > 'perl' where we know the backslash behavior.
>
> The example as you have it now is directly contradictory to the
> published spec.
>
> I agree with Simon's suggestion to remove "-e" from the example
> (thereby making it spec-compliant) and add a parenthetical remark
> suggesting that standards-challenged versions of echo might need "-e".
Well, I just tried Linux and FreeBSD bash (the default shell?) and they
both need '-e' to render '\n' as a newline, so I think we should just
leave it with '-e'. Following the spec doesn't help if our two major
operating systems don't follow the spec, plus the example doesn't work
on Win32 at all.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
