On Sunday, October 21, 2018 12:35:04 PM David Wright wrote: > On Sun 21 Oct 2018 at 11:45:49 (-0400), rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > > Any further clarification / clues would be appreciated. > > Use neither option to see the difference with using either -l or -L. > So that standard output doesn't clutter the output, I suggest > redirecting it thus: > > $ grep test - >| /tmp/a ; echo "and the output is" ; cat /tmp/a > > Then you will see the difference when you add -l as an option.
Ok, thanks again, to you and Curt! I see the difference, but it may take a little while for it to really soak in (and / or to recognize a use / need for it (for me)), but I guess I learned something ;-) It sort of looks like that, with the -l option, if there were additonal files that also had matches, I might have to restart the command to find others, but, I'm not sure of that, and I guess I'd have to run a more extensive test to confirm that, like creating at least two files with matches and put them in a directory (probably with some other files that don't match). I'm not ready to do that at the moment, so I'll leave it there for now. (And, I doubt there's a way to run the same command using standard input twice (e.g., something like grep test - - ...).) For anyone else who is interested, my tests are shown below: <quote> rhk@s19:/rhk/ked1$ grep test - >| /tmp/a ; echo "and the output is" ; cat /tmp/a one two test one two test ^C rhk@s19:/rhk/ked1$ less /tmp/a rhk@s19:/rhk/ked1$ grep -l test - >| /tmp/a ; echo "and the output is" ; cat /tmp/a one two test and the output is (standard input) rhk@s19:/rhk/ked1$ grep -L test - >| /tmp/a ; echo "and the output is" ; cat /tmp/a one two test and the output is rhk@s19:/rhk/ked1$ </quote>
