Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:56:40 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: eee-dee anyone? Message-ID: <441s2o9zrr.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20190330035113.65fc995f.freebsd@edvax.de> (Polytropon's message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2019 03:51:13 %2B0100") References: <23e162e23288d9a2e498df5f40488bb8@kathe.in> <44muld9su4.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20190330035113.65fc995f.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> writes: > I think you're confusing vi and ex here (which are the same > executable), but ed is something different (a different program). > But I think the reason for this confusion is that using ed > feels like using vi's ex mode or the ex standalone program. :-) Yes, definitely. Because it's described by POSIX, ed(1) is with us to stay. Because it has non-trivial differences between POSIX and BSD versions (which have bitten me in the past), I use sed(1) regardless of whether ed would have done the job. I suspect that is a common pattern.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?441s2o9zrr.fsf>