Fabian Stelzer <fs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>I am not sure '\n' is a good idea from portability perspective. I >>thought I wrote '\012' in the illustration in my review? > > Yes, i was wondering why you did that. When i played around with your > variant i used \n since it's what i commonly use and find more readable. > And i'm by far no expert on partability. What platforms would have an > issue with \n ? I think I misremembered. b3b753b1 (Fit to Plan 9's ANSI/POSIX compatibility layer, 2020-09-10) does talk about a system whose "tr" does not fully emulate POSIX and wants an octal, but that is not a platform we target for to begin with. $ git grep '^[ ]*tr .*\\012['\''"]' $ git grep '^[ ]*tr .*\\n['\''"]' show the same number of hits, even back in v2.0.0. You have to go back to v1.6.0 (which I consider is the oldest and still usable release of significance) to see the source tree without any hit for the latter. The first introduction of tr "\n" (which I consider is a mistake---if we write octal, we do not have to worry about anybody not supporting it) seems to be dea4562b (rerere forget path: forget recorded resolution, 2009-12-25) made by me X-<.
