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, though. Bruno
