X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
From: Eric Blake <ebb9@byu.net>
Subject:  Re: trouble with bash / if in recent release / update ?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:52:21 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 45
Message-ID:  <loom.20070130T194452-31@post.gmane.org>
References:  <loom.20070129T181002-616@post.gmane.org> <loom.20070130T081531-446@post.gmane.org> <45BF45FE.2080406@byu.net> <loom.20070130T183810-691@post.gmane.org>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

Daniel Brockman <dan <at> spicetrader.net> writes:

> Eric, I am glad there are people like you, knowledgable and deeply interested. 
> Clearly you have given much thought to the consistency and efficiency of
> Cygwin/
> Linux. All of us benefit from your valuable efforts. I'm sincerely grateful.

I appreciate your sentiments.  It made for one of the nicer complaint mails
I've read on this topic.

> > 
> > READ THE ARCHIVES!  This topic has been talked to death in the past two
> 
> I have limited time available to me to read the archives. I still object to 
> having to cope with this interruption to functionality on which I have relied.

I don't expect you regularly to read the main cygwin list (it is very high
volume, after all).  But google searches should have shown that you are just
rehashing a hot topic.  Even reading the release announcements (a low-volume
list) is worth doing.  You should never upgrade if you don't know why you are
upgrading, and what might change as a result.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

> 
> Another alternate might be to make the sensitivity to raw carriage returns,
> and 
> the associated performance enhancement, an option to the shell, rather than 
> default behavior.

Wow - we ARE thinking on the same lines.  I already did that.  The shell option
is named igncr.

> I will accept slower performance in exchange for usefulness and backward 
> compatibility.

Then according to the release announcements, exporting the environment variable
SHELLOPTS while it contains igncr should do the trick for you.  And if it
doesn't, report a simple test case of what it isn't doing that it should do
(why do you think we are at bash release 3.2.9-11?  it's because I've been
bending over backwards trying to improve igncr, and it's taken me several shots
as people keep on demonstrating another simple test case where I can easily
make it better).

-- 
Eric Blake



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/