Re: Changes to grep/doc/grep.1

[Julian Foad]

Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> Charles Levert wrote:
>
> > Here is a tentative patch.  Please search
> > through both files and try to find any remaining
> > similar formulations that I may have missed,
>
> I've found no other such formulations.  But looking closely at the 
> text, I did find some unquoted occurrences of `grep', and a few 
> spelling and wording errors.  The first patch fixes these, plus an 
> example that doesn't make sense.

That first patch of yours looks good.

>  For example , @samp{\brat\b} matches the separate word @samp{rat},

While we're here, whoever commits this might as well fix that space after the 
comma.

> address@hidden matches @samp{crate}, but @samp{dirty \Brat} doesn't
> -match @samp{dirty rat}.
> address@hidden matches @samp{crate} but not @samp{furry rat}.

I note your fondness for rats :-)  I've handled a friend's pet rat, or rather 
it handled me, running up my sleeves and round my neck.


> The second patch adds the "(using wildcard matching)" also to the 
> explanation of `--include'.  It removes the "and directories", to 
> make the text describe the actual behaviour of grep.

I'm just preparing a more comprehensive set of documentation tweaks that 
includes adding "(using wildcard matching)", and also says what that means, so 
wait and have a look at what I post in the next day or two.

As for "and directories", that's always been controversial; are you sure that 
change matches what the current source does?  Is that what we want it to do? 
I'll have a look into it later.


> The third patch applies after the first two; it reorders the GNU 
> options alphabetically.

I haven't reviewed that yet.  Just to give a hint as to why it may not be 
uncontroversial: It's possible that we may prefer to have some deviations from 
strict alphabetical order in order to keep some related options together.  I 
know that approach doesn't strictly work and is illogical, but ... I'll have a 
look at it later.

- Julian