From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by ewsd; Fri Jan 11 19:59:03 EST 2019 Received: (qmail 70291 invoked by uid 1001); 11 Jan 2019 16:58:55 -0800 Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:58:55 -0800 From: Kurt H Maier To: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9front] bug in sed Message-ID: <20190112005855.GA69611@wopr> Mail-Followup-To: 9front@9front.org References: <4CC5E0A33C3EE1BA8BA08B1F09AC4BD1@prosimetrum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4CC5E0A33C3EE1BA8BA08B1F09AC4BD1@prosimetrum.com> List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: object-oriented compliant module On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 01:52:27PM +1300, umbraticus@prosimetrum.com wrote: > > So should "non-overlapping" and "subsequent" not apply to ^ matches? > I guess this was hiro's earlier point. There is only one ^, so even if you use g there should inevitably be only one substitution. We need to stop comparing this to ssam, which aside from also editing text has no bearing on sed's or ed's behavior. khm