Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:52:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Jamie Howard <howardjp@wam.umd.edu> To: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@yes.no>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: replacing grep(1) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907271544430.2292-100000@dragon.ham.muohio.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9907271323470.1387-100000@dt011n65.san.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Doug wrote: > First, I'm all for this idea, and applaud you and Jamie for taking > it on. I do have a few questions. Does POSIX say anything about grep, and > if so, is this version compliant? Also, I'd like to put in another vote > for full GNU grep feature compliance, since while having our own code is a > good thing, I am against introducing gratuitous differences since I have > enough of those to deal with already. I do not have a copy of POSIX, but I do have Unix98 which is a superset of POSIX. Right now, excluding bugs, it is Unix 98 and therefore POSIX compliant except for -e. -e should permit multiple patterns and it never occured to me that anyone would want to do this. When used with -F, multiple patterns are accepted. > I use grep heavily in day to day administration tasks so I look > forward to giving this a try. Cool, d/l it and post a bug-list :) Jamie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.9907271544430.2292-100000>