<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: echo -n bug</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hans.fugal.net/blog/2007/12/07/echo-n-bug/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hans.fugal.net/blog/2007/12/07/echo-n-bug/</link>
	<description>Counterpoint by Hans Fugal</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:21:40 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: http://disorderedthoughtprocesses.com</title>
		<link>http://hans.fugal.net/blog/2007/12/07/echo-n-bug/comment-page-1/#comment-1672</link>
		<dc:creator>http://disorderedthoughtprocesses.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:66f7435f-971d-4b09-bfd3-66bd8e242a5a#comment-1672</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;It&#039;s not a bug. It&#039;s a feature :)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;/bin/sh doesn&#039;t have a -n option for echo. And if you symlink /bin/sh to bash and/or you invoke bash as /bin/sh (by, for example, prefacing your script with #!/bin/sh) it will behave like /bin/sh&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A workaround would be to just use /bin/echo instead of the built-in command.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not a bug. It&#8217;s a feature :)</p>
<p>/bin/sh doesn&#8217;t have a -n option for echo. And if you symlink /bin/sh to bash and/or you invoke bash as /bin/sh (by, for example, prefacing your script with #!/bin/sh) it will behave like /bin/sh</p>
<p>A workaround would be to just use /bin/echo instead of the built-in command.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans</title>
		<link>http://hans.fugal.net/blog/2007/12/07/echo-n-bug/comment-page-1/#comment-1673</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">urn:uuid:66f7435f-971d-4b09-bfd3-66bd8e242a5a#comment-1673</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Looks like you&#039;re right, sort of. Here&#039;s a page on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/echo/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;echo behavior.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It looks like there&#039;s no consensus on whether Bourne shell (not bash) has &lt;code&gt;echo -n&lt;/code&gt;, but I notice that it says the POSIX echo doesn&#039;t.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I thought it might be something like this at first, but the odd behavior in iTerm was a red herring. I&#039;m reinstating the original &lt;code&gt;/bin/bash&lt;/code&gt; and &lt;code&gt;/bin/sh&lt;/code&gt;, and calling it a bug in abcde.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looks like you&#8217;re right, sort of. Here&#8217;s a page on <a href="http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/echo/" rel="nofollow">echo behavior.</a></p>
<p>It looks like there&#8217;s no consensus on whether Bourne shell (not bash) has <code>echo -n</code>, but I notice that it says the POSIX echo doesn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>I thought it might be something like this at first, but the odd behavior in iTerm was a red herring. I&#8217;m reinstating the original <code>/bin/bash</code> and <code>/bin/sh</code>, and calling it a bug in abcde.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
