On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 01:01:52PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Zack, Alexandre,
>
> Sorry for a very late comment to this old thread; I now have access to
> such a system.
For myself, I have moved on and no longer have access to any HP systems,
but it is good to hear that someone is following up on this patch. I have
only one comment:
> > > Is the leading `;' important?
> >
> > You mean the one immediately after the '{'? Yes, that has to be there, or
> > sed will give syntax errors.
>
> I cannot reproduce the syntax errors (on B.11.23);
> sed -ne '2,${s/^ *//; s/ \\*$//; s/$/:/; p;}'
>
> seems to work just fine (note I changed the first command to `s/^ *//').
... This may well work with whichever sed you've got on your B.11.23.
I see that NetBSD 2.0 sed, which is the only sed I can get at right
now, is fine with a similar construct. However, I assure you,
older sed implementations will barf if there is no semicolon
immediately after the open brace. (The brace is treated as a
command, and must have a semicolon to separate it from the next
command in the -e expression.) Please leave it in.
zw
