From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from techfac.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de ([129.70.1.2]) by archone.tamu.edu with SMTP id <22533>; Thu, 29 Aug 1991 05:01:19 -0500
Received: from dahlie.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE by techfac.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (5.65+bind 1.7+ida 1.4.2/tp.29.0890)
	id AA03900; Thu, 29 Aug 91 12:01:03 +0200
Received: by dahlie.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (4.1/tp.29.0890)
	id AA06533; Wed, 28 Aug 91 21:28:26 +0200
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1991 14:28:26 -0500
From: malte@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Message-Id: <9108281928.AA06533@dahlie.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: rc@archone.tamu.edu
Subject: hopefully last letter on sh

Mea culpa, John is right with what he says about terminal \n handling in
sh. The file including the sample is kind of a binary, so therefore it hasn't
got a terminal \n.
But I disagree on your "cat" example. This only prooves that you cannot
decide whether perror(3) on pathnames or sh inside "" strips trailing \ns.
Having read John's letter I tried this (^X is char 030):

	echo "hello ^X there" > test
	od -c tescht

which gives "h   e   l   l   o     030       t   h   e   r   e  \n"

	echo -n "`cat test`" | od -c

responding with "h   e   l   l   o     030       t   h   e   r   e"

Anyway, the result is the same, I just had to have those control chars kept.
And now the final answer for today, which is:
	prg -sample `` () { cat file }

This really works!

To come to an end: I know that my expamples were silly, but there were people
seriously suggesting this, and I wanted to prevent answers of this kind.
And insulting will probably not have been the right word, I meant something
weaker. Sigh, English is not my native language.


Malte