{"thread":{"id":"63638","subject":"Re: Solaris sed","startedAt":"2025-06-12T22:52:25Z","lastAt":"2025-06-12T22:52:25Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["Ben Knoble"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"520200","messageId":"CAA388EA-9C6A-439F-BF67-ED40DE97F532@gmail.com","threadId":"63638","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Re: Solaris sed","fromName":"Ben Knoble","fromEmail":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","sentAt":"2025-06-12T22:52:12Z","receivedAt":"2025-06-12T22:52:25Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/22802209?v=4"},"body":"\n> Le 12 juin 2025 à 09:42, Paul Smith <paul@mad-scientist.net> a écrit :\n> \n> On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 01:50 -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:\n>> Had it used the simpler:\n>>    echo \"$foo\"\n>> this sort of problem (forgetting the \"\\n\") would never have occurred.\n> \n> Just be aware that echo is not well-standardized: many versions of echo\n> accept extra options or treat certain chars specially.  So, printf\n> (which IS well-standardized) is always safer unless you are 100% sure\n> that the text on the echo command line is simple: cannot start with a\n> \"-\", doesn't contain special chars like backslash, etc.\n> \n> For portability I (personally) always prefer printf unless I know\n> exactly what the text contains (like showing a static string).\n\nFor exactly this reason, I attempted to write echo(1) to the standards I could find freely available; POSIX mentioned 4, IIRC.\n\nhttps://github.com/benknoble/echocho"}]}