Re: fix AT_SETUP's sh-escaping

[Paul Eggert]

Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:

> 1) I don't see how Paul's quoting changes actually fix a portability
> issue, but it's pretty clear that they don't hurt.

You're right, my mistake.  The code is portable to all POSIX shells.
I vaguely recall older shells where the double-quoted shell string
"\x" evaluated to x rather than \x but perhaps my memory is mistaken.
That being said, I prefer escaping \ within double-quoted shell strings,
even when POSIX says it's not necessary, since I think it's clearer
and more consistent to do so.

> At which point I gave up.  I think using cat and here-documents
> everywhere is a complete waste.  IMHO we should document that
> backslashes in AT_SETUP's argument are dangerous (who would need that
> anyway?), disable the test (because it will pass when all echos in use
> do not interpret backslashes)

That will be never, I'm afraid, as XSI requires interpretation.

How about if we use something like the ECHO_C / ECHO_N technology
instead?  I'll take a look at it, I guess.