> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 16 Nov 2000 10:45:57 +0100
> We do agree `/foo[\/]bar/' is a single pattern which matches the
> string `foo/bar', right? Then, why do you use the char class here?
Because, if my admittedly fallible memory serves, some older hosts
mishandle /foo\
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We do agree `/foo[\/]bar/' is a single pattern which matches the
> string `foo/bar', right?
It matches the strings `foo/bar' and `foo\bar', if you believe in SUS.
/Johan
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Do you mean `s,[^/]*$,,' would work here?
Yes.
> Just for the record, Cray is correct: POSIX does not allow
> `s/[^/]*$//'. `s,[^/]*$,,' is required to work, though.
How does POSIX differ from Single UN
| > From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > Date: 15 Nov 2000 16:32:18 +0100
| >
| > Do you mean `s,[^/]*$,,' would work here? Man, how can someone write
| > something that broken :(.
|
| Just for the record, Cray is correct: POSIX does not allow
| `s/[^/]*$//'. `s,[^/]*$,,' is required t
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > Bruce> never, ever use substitution separator
> > Bruce> chars inside of the substitution expressions, period.
>
> I've had good luck with strings like `/foo[\/]bar/' in cases where I
> already know from context that the matched string can't contain `\'.
> That's portabl
> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 15 Nov 2000 16:32:18 +0100
>
> Do you mean `s,[^/]*$,,' would work here? Man, how can someone write
> something that broken :(.
Just for the record, Cray is correct: POSIX does not allow
`s/[^/]*$//'. `s,[^/]*$,,' is required to work, though.
> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruce> Johan Danielsson wrote:
>> Autoheader does `sed "s/[^/]*$//"', which doesn't work with Cray
>> sed, and Cray claims this is in compliance with POSIX. Is this
>> correct?
Bruce> It is irrelevant. If true and Cray changes, there will
Johan Danielsson wrote:
>
> Autoheader does `sed "s/[^/]*$//"', which doesn't work with Cray sed,
> and Cray claims this is in compliance with POSIX. Is this correct?
It is irrelevant. If true and Cray changes, there will still be
versions floating around wherein it is broken. More cruft for
t
Autoheader does `sed "s/[^/]*$//"', which doesn't work with Cray sed,
and Cray claims this is in compliance with POSIX. Is this correct?
/Johan
