[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: groff 1.23.0.rc4 on Solaris 11 OpenIndiana

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: groff 1.23.0.rc4 on Solaris 11 OpenIndiana
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 15:46:47 +0200

Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Doesn't that look a bit odd?  Both tr and sed want to see a single
> backslash in their argv[] string.  tr for \000 and sed for \( and \).
> The arguments to both are in sh's single quotes.  Yet the backslashes
> for tr are single whereas sed's are doubled.

Yes, this is the first part of what is wrong.

> This suggests some variation between sh implementations.

No, my tests show that it's a variation between 'sed' implementations
that causes the problem. The shell remained the same in my tests.

> If the multi-line sed is a portability problem.  And it probably isn't.

In my tests, the multi-line sed was not the problem.

The '\n' interpretation was a difference between 'sed' implementations,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]