4 ms·
You seem to have a very narrow definition of "portable." Can you link to the definition of the jargon term you appear to be using here? Also, have you consider
by burntsushi 5y ago
You seem to have a very narrow definition of "portable." Can you link to the definition of the jargon term you appear to be using here?
Also, have you considered that some words have colloquial meanings too, and that it doesn't make sense to label them as "not correct"?
- uplime 5y ago> You seem to have a very narrow definition of "portable." Can you explain how wanting to include more programs into the definition of portable is narrow? > Can you link to the definition of the jargon term you appear to be using here? The same definition I've always seen in every community discussing shell-scripting: if it's specified by the POSIX (Portable Operating System Interface) standard. POSIX does have a definition of `echo`. GNU echo does not conform to it by default, but can be configured to. > Also, have you considered that some words have colloquial meanings too, and that it doesn't make sense to label them as "not correct"? But it makes sense to label `echo` itself as not portable? The argument can be made that `GNU echo` is not portable (even though it can be with an environment variable), however that should be specified, instead of mentioning there are several implementations where it is non-standard.
- burntsushi 5y agoYou sound like a zealot to be honest. You misconstrued my post and gave a disingenuous response IMO. And you didn't answer my questions.