Quentin,
Quoth Quentin Rameau:
>Hi,
>
>> Right, and the same behavior is shown by all the seds I’ve seen (GNU,
>> BSD, Busybox & Plan 9). Interestingly, both GNU and BSD ed give an
>> error instead (for global substitution against a null-matching regex).
>
>What is “BSD”? Are you talking about BSD 4.4?
>OpenBSD's sed surely gives the same result as our sbase sed.
s/BSD/Open&/
OpenBSD’s sed gives the same result as sbase sed. OpenBSD’s _ed_ gives
an error.
>But in "glorious" there isn't an ethereal null string between each
>character, so in addition to be an unexpected result it isn't correct to
>get a replacement of "PgPlPoPrPiPoPuPsP".
It’s outside of the (s)ed line-oriented world of data, but sam(1) (with
its more enlightened definitions of regexes) assumes these ethereal null
strings.
--
wcm
Received on Tue Jul 26 2016 - 21:23:57 CEST