From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:31:32 GMT
Subject: Re: POSIX woes in t7810.87: dash bash or bash dash?
Message-ID: <7vwrgg9j1n.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110620232425.GA617@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 02:46:08PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/t/t7810-grep.sh b/t/t7810-grep.sh
>> index 69bd576..6379ad6 100755
>> --- a/t/t7810-grep.sh
>> +++ b/t/t7810-grep.sh
>> @@ -658,9 +658,9 @@ test_expect_success LIBPCRE 'grep -P -v pattern' '
>>  '
>>  
>>  test_expect_success LIBPCRE 'grep -P -i pattern' '
>> -	{
>> -		echo "hello.c:	printf(\"Hello world.\n\");"
>> -	} >expected &&
>> +	cat >expected <<-EOF &&
>> +	hello.c:	printf("Hello world.\n");
>> +	EOF
>
> Do you need to quote EOF to suppress expansion in the here document?
> Both bash and dash seem to pass unknown backslash-escapes like "\n"
> through unharmed, but I don't know if that is portable (they do both
> munge known escapes like "\\", of course).

I do not think that is strictly necessary, as we are not in the corner of
non-portable echo behaviour anymore, but I guess it wouldn't hurt.