Glenn Golden <g...@zplane.com> writes: > 2c: How about just adding a brief "NOTE" (or "CAVEAT") section to echo.1, > explicitly addressing the wart and advocating for printf(1) as well? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > NOTE > For historical and back-compatibility reasons, certain bare option-like > strings cannot be emitted without setting POSIXLY_CORRECT, and the bare > string '-n' cannot be emitted at all. Prefixing or suffixing such strings > with quoted whitespace (e.g. ' -n') can be used as a workaround for this > peculiarity. More generally, printf(1) is recommended as a more modern > and flexible replacement for tasks historically performed by echo(1). > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Something like this seems to get the job done: Briefly states the issue, > why it exists, provides a workaround, and cheerleads for modernization.
That is great. I would love to see this note in echo's man page. Regards, Florent
