Em 2010.07.28. 17:48, Dag-Erling Smørgrav escreveu:
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
b. f. writes:
I don't think that the current behavior of bsdgrep is necessarily bad
-- in fact it seems to me to be simple and intuitive: nothing is
excluded or included implicitly, and (I think) the last mat
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
> b. f. writes:
> > I don't think that the current behavior of bsdgrep is necessarily bad
> > -- in fact it seems to me to be simple and intuitive: nothing is
> > excluded or included implicitly, and (I think) the last match wins,
> > unlike in gnu grep.
> Ok, thanks, then
Em 2010.07.28. 17:26, b. f. escreveu:
I don't think that the current behavior of bsdgrep is necessarily bad
-- in fact it seems to me to be simple and intuitive: nothing is
excluded or included implicitly, and (I think) the last match wins,
unlike in gnu grep. I mention it only because it is dif
On 7/28/10, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
> Em 2010.07.27. 5:59, b. f. escreveu:
> Thanks for bringing this up, I'll take a look and try to implement the
> same behaviour. And I will also document the behaviour.
I don't think that the current behavior of bsdgrep is necessarily bad
-- in fact it seems to
Em 2010.07.27. 5:59, b. f. escreveu:
Other important differences between bsdgrep and GNU grep:
The --include option in bsdgrep does not have the same effect as the
corresponding option in GNU grep -- in GNU grep, that option causes
_only_ those files matching the file inclusion pattern to be sea
Other important differences between bsdgrep and GNU grep:
The --include option in bsdgrep does not have the same effect as the
corresponding option in GNU grep -- in GNU grep, that option causes
_only_ those files matching the file inclusion pattern to be searched.
To obtain the same behavior in
`-l' option is not supposed to show the matching line at all, only filename.
Thanks. Fix is ready and waiting for my mentor's approval.
http://kovesdan.org/patches/grep-lL.diff
Gabor
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.free
(the message didn't get into the list because of silly typo: `cuirrent@'
instead of `current@')
Gabor Kovesdan writes:
> I've fixed the last two issues that were reported. If you encounter
> something more, please let me know.
Thanks. But I think there is another issue affecting usr.bin/kdump/m
