Re: [Chicken-hackers] [patch] utils: qs not escaping pipes

[Peter Bex]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:03:34PM +0100, Michele La Monaca wrote:
> While I agree that the proposed patch is the safest approach and
> should be the default behavior, I would retain the backslash-based
> escaping as an option if possible. Backslash-based escaping is quite
> common and should be available to the user in my opinion.

Why?  What does it buy us?  The only reason 'qs' is available is to
safely escape arbitrary strings for the shell.  I think the new version
does a good job at this.

Why should we provide a known-broken version?

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net