Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:00:31 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Robert Hoehne <robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net> cc: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>, "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>, djgpp-workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com> Subject: Re: rhide-1.4.6 In-Reply-To: <3614CE10.3C10FE91@gmx.net> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.981004130004.1863f-100000@is> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Robert Hoehne wrote: > Here follows now a test case where I don't know if it is a bug > in sed or in the sed-script (maybe Eli can help) or in the > DJGPP regex function(s). It's a bug in the script. It worked with previous versions of Sed because they use GNU regexp library, which doesn't impose strict Posix regexp requirements. In particular, the \+ meta-character is not supported by the basic regular expressions which is all Sed knows about. The GNU regexp library supports \+ as an extension, but sed.exe was linked with DJGPP's regexp functions which don't have this extension; that's why gsed.exe works while sed.exe doesn't. (Personally, I think it's a bad idea to have these extensions silently supported, because many people aren't aware of the fine differences between basic and extended regexps, and so this proliferates non-portable scripts.) The solution is to use "^[ ][ ]*" instead of "^[ ]\+" (and if you look into the latest FAQ sources, you will see that I already bumped into this one when I worked on FAQ v2.11 ;-).