Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:08:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Cc: tjr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] for review Re: Sed substitution bugs Message-ID: <20030604180358.J614@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <20030604155534.GQ18938@chiark.greenend.org.uk> References: <20030603144225.GH18938@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20030603211357.B70533@espresso.bsdmike.org> <20030604104636.A88028@FreeBSD.org> <20030604155534.GQ18938@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Tony Finch wrote: TF>On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 10:46:36AM -0500, Juli Mallett wrote: TF>> TF>> We seem to bounce back and forth on what exactly counts as passing TF>> that test.. Tell ya what, run it against SysV or GNU sed, and patch TF>> using the diffs. TF> TF>Solaris: TF>$ echo -n foo | sed y/o/O/ TF>sed: Missing newline at end of file standard input. TF>fOO TF>$ TF> TF>GNU: TF>$ echo -n foo | sed y/o/O/ TF>fOO$ TF> TF>GNU is clearly the right implementation, and it's what the regression TF>test says sed should do. I think sed should be fixed. (I can't do it TF>right now because I'm going climbing.) Either way is correct since, according to posix, sed works only on text files and a file containing the three characters 'f' 'o' 'o' is not a text file. That said, I think, the GNU variant is the more sane 'unspecified' behaviour. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030604180358.J614>