Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Robert> Just out of interest, does the sed in /usr/xpg4
work correctly?
>
> Yes, it does. Thanks. Adding a symlink to that version of sed from an
> earlier directory in PATH solves my configure problem (but see my next
> mail...). I didn't want to insert /usr/xpg4/bin at the start of PATH for
> fear of changing something else.
>
> Just for completeness, /usr/ucb/sed does not work.
Thank you both very much for this analysis.
I suppose that the '?' construct is understood by basically all seds?
Using '\{0,1\}' instead of '?' seems like asking for trouble....
I'll check the autoconf portability docs and see what they say, but if
anyone has any random information on sed script portability I'd love
to hear it.
According to IEEE 1003.1-2004[1], \{...\} is standard but ? or \?
aren't.
[1]
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/sed.html
The sed utility shall support the BREs described in the Base
Definitions volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001, Section 9.3, Basic
Regular Expressions[2], with the following additions:
[2]
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap09.html#ta...
The Info file for GNU sed says that \? is a GNU extension.
--
Glynn Clements <glynn(a)gclements.plus.com>
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta