Re: [BusyBox] Even more sed rumblings...

[Glenn McGrath]

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:06:27 -0500
Rob Landley <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Saturday 27 September 2003 19:37, Glenn McGrath wrote:

> > "Command verbs other than {, a, b, c, i, r, t, w, :, and # can be
> > followed by a semicolon, optional <blank>s, and another command
> > verb. However, when the s command verb is used with the w flag,
> > following it with another command in this manner produces undefined
> > results."
> >
> > Here they are saying  '<command1> <command2>' is specifically
> > allowed, and they state that there is an ambuity due to the above
> > example.
> 
> No, they are saying that '<command1>; <command2>' is allowed.  The
> semicolon is not optional here.  (GNU sed has been implementing this
> behavior for ten years without major complaints.)


hmm, i was interpreting it as "can be followed by a semicolon _or_
optional <blank>s, and another command verb", i see it now.

So the w flag is only troublesome if the filename starts with a
semicolon.

So waht the spec is saying is that if the command + arguments can have
spaces in it ie.  the comamnds '{','a', 'b', 'c', 'i','r', 't', 'w',
':', and '#' then to seperate the command from any following commands
you must use a semicolon followed by optional <blank>s

In that case GNU sed isnt following the spec because it doesnt require
the semicolon ;)

': loo p'



Glenn