On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:05:09 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:24:30PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> Pierre Gaston wrote:
>> > Please consider asking in a sed mailing list like:
>> > http://sed.sourceforge.net/#mailing
>> > or maybe in the usenet group comp.unix.shell
>>
>> I
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I would think help-gnu-ut...@gnu.org would be the better place to ask
> > for help about GNU utilities. :-)
>
> We don't know that he's using GNU sed.
True, we don't know for sure. But I think it likely that it is GNU
sed given the behavior. Plus ei
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:24:30PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Pierre Gaston wrote:
> > Please consider asking in a sed mailing list like:
> > http://sed.sourceforge.net/#mailing
> > or maybe in the usenet group comp.unix.shell
>
> I would think help-gnu-ut...@gnu.org would be the better place to a
Pierre Gaston wrote:
> Please consider asking in a sed mailing list like:
> http://sed.sourceforge.net/#mailing
> or maybe in the usenet group comp.unix.shell
I would think help-gnu-ut...@gnu.org would be the better place to ask
for help about GNU utilities. :-)
Bob
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 3:27 PM, henter2009
wrote:
>
> I have the following question about sed and methacaracters:
>
> This mailing list is mainly about the development, the features and the
bugs of bash.
sed is not really related to the shell, except that you often use it in bash
and in scripts.
I have the following question about sed and methacaracters:
In the eg number 1, I escaped the +, to get any matches with 1 plus (1 or
more characters)
In the eg number 2, I escaped the *, to get any matches with 0 or more
characters, but it scape the * and takes it at literal.
Why it doesn't tak
