|
From: | Gregory Heytings |
Subject: | bug#59444: ADVICE-ON-FAILURE sed syntax error |
Date: | Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:17:47 +0000 |
Again I tested this with (GNU) sed with --posix, and it gave the expected result.Then what we should learn from this is that GNU sed --posix cannot be trusted blindly to reject non-POSIX features. This is unsurprising -- it can be difficult to keep all extensions from leaking past the gate.
Do you know of any computer program that can be trusted blindly? ;-)
The reason I chose the former expression instead of the latter is because it's how I usually write such patterns.That doesn't answer the question. Why that roundabout way, rather than the simpler direct approach?
I write such expressions that way because with that expression only the first matching block is printed. Which is admittedly not important in this case, but habits being what they are...
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |