Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:56:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Eggert <eggert AT twinsun DOT com>
Message-Id: <200008111956.MAA12359@ruby.twinsun.com>
To: meyering AT ascend DOT com
CC: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, tr AT eth DOT net, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
        autoconf AT gnu DOT org
In-reply-to: <urysnsb4qia.fsf_-_@ixi.eng.ascend.com> (meyering@ascend.com)
Subject: Re: portability of sed's \{0,1\}?
References: <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0007250651010 DOT 823-100000 AT midpec DOT com>
	<200008110941 DOT CAA29407 AT drawbridge DOT ascend DOT com>
	<uryem3w86ib DOT fsf AT ixi DOT eng DOT ascend DOT com>
	<200008111728 DOT KAA12810 AT drawbridge DOT ascend DOT com> <urysnsb4qia DOT fsf_-_ AT ixi DOT eng DOT ascend DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

   From: Jim Meyering <meyering AT ascend DOT com>
   Date: 11 Aug 2000 20:11:25 +0200

   I saw the earlier thread (on the autoconf list) on this topic where
   someone found that `?' and \| were not portable.  Has anyone found a
   system on which \{m,n\} is not portable?

Most likely, seds that don't support ? and \| also don't support
\{m,n\}, as I recall that those features were introduced to USG Unix
at about the same time.  Unix Version 7 didn't have them.