Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/09/27/13:17:12
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:30:31PM +0100, Fifer, Eric wrote:
>>This was my point. We fixed ash to do the right thing and I've been
>>waiting patiently for the bash maintainer to fix bash as well.
>
>Is it possible to get a better idea of what the "right thing" is?
The "right thing" is for shells to read their input in text mode. How
many times does this have to be repeated?
>+ Perl has a similar backtick syntax, but is fine handling
> binary data. I think it would be wrong to cripple its
> binary abilities by setting text mode on backtick input.
> However, as cat works now, on a text mount this will fail:
Perl is not a shell. We have an immediate problem: bash. bash needs to
have its back tick handling "fixed" (I hate to characterise accomodating
this CRLF nonsense as fixing anything). I asked the *cygwin* bash
maintainer to do this months ago and he has not been responsive in doing
this. So, I'm looking for another *cygwin* bash maintainer.
There is no reason to throw perl, python, awk, sed, or gnuplot into the
mix and theorize about a grand unified plan for what to do whenever
program 'foo' finds a backtick. We just need someone who is willing to
make the changes to bash.
cgf
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -