From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2fed0cd7578acdab872e594bac7911fb@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:02:13 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] regular expressions in plan9 different from the ones in
	unix? (at least linux)
In-Reply-To: <599f06db0702230417r18697174k606712cddd41e6b9@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 136b615e-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

i don't think that sort of absolutist thinking really works.
i used gnu grep (and all the other gnu tools) on utf-8 stuff=20
from the time of the first sam release for unix till i stopped using=20
linux for much development.  i never had a problem with
g(ed|sed|awk|e?grep) tripping on utf-8 when the local was
unset or "C".  i did keep in mind that . wasn't going to match
"=E2=98=BA", though.

we all know the limitations of our tools.  that doesn't make
them broken. =20

just because plan 9 does bad things if you exceed NPROCS,
doesn't make it broken.

- erik

On 2/23/07, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
>         ; egrep '[=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD]0' fu
>         ; egrep '^.0' fu
>