On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:53 AM, Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 10:38:32PM +0200, Uriel wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> nawk is one-true-awk from FreeBSD. I find the results strange, namely >>> because Plan 9's awk is also one-true-awk. It also produces reasonable >>> results with "^y" instead of "y", while gawk doesn't. I know that nawk >>> uses >>> a combination NFA/DFA, but I see that Plan 9's awk instead pre-process >>> the >>> expression and uses Plan 9's pure-NFA engine. My guess is that, because >>> they're greedy algorithms, they both traverse the entire string looking >>> for >>> a possibly longer match, but my understanding of Plan 9's altorithm was >>> otherwise. >> >> I think one of the very few differences between Plan 9's awk and bwk's >> awk is UTF-8 support, not sure why that would make a difference, but I >> thought they were mostly identical otherwise. > > That's mostly true, but awk is still actively developed, and has had a lot > of changes in the 11 years since it was last synced with Plan 9. It also > uses an entirely different regular expression engine.
Interesting, I thought they had done a sync more recently *sigh* And did't know about the completely different regexp engine. I'm a bit surprised because in my experience I had found that if anything Plan 9 awk's seemed to err more on the side of leaving things the way they were upstream, for example system() uses ksh instead of rc. uriel > -- > Kris Maglione > > The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly > teaches me to suspect that my own is also. > --Mark Twain > > >
