Oops, sorry, I was looking at info ed, which is the BSD ed. Info ged says they are supported. So it looks like it's a brew problem: ed is being built against a pure Posix regular expression package, probably a BSD one.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:21 PM John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > Info ed is the source of the statement that what regex things work depends > on the regex package ed was built with. Jump down to COMMANDS and it's > right above that, the last paragraph in the REGULAR EXPRESSIONS section. > > The link to the Posix standard is the source of the statement that \+ etc. > are not defined in Posix basic REs. > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:40 PM Brian Zwahr <ech...@echosa.net> wrote: > >> Thanks for the response. I didn't realize any of that. The GNU ed manual >> makes no mention of that on the Regular Expressions page. It just lists \+ >> as valid. Does the manual need to be updated to include this information? >> Additionally, I've checked `info ed` and I don't see anything about >> extensions or only having access to things like \+ conditionally based upon >> how ed was compiled or installed. Am I just not seeing it in the info? >> Which page is it on? >> >> https://www.gnu.org/software/ed/manual/ed_manual.html#Regular-expressions >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 3:07 PM, John Cowan wrote: >> > ed uses Posix basic REs, and the use of \+ in basic REs to get the >> effect of + in extended REs is a non-Posix extension. See < >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap09.html#tag_09_05_01>, >> where there is no mention of \+ except its use in extended REs. The same >> is true of escaped ?, (, ), |, {. >> > >> > The `info ed` command documents that exactly which regular expression >> characters work depends on the regex package with which ed was built. >> > >> > -- >> > John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan >> co...@ccil.org >> > He made the Legislature meet at one-horse tank-towns out in the alfalfa >> > belt, so that hardly nobody could get there and most of the leaders >> > would stay home and let him go to work and do things as he pleased. >> > --H.L. Mencken's translation of the Declaration of Independence >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 3:52 PM Brian Zwahr <ech...@echosa.net> wrote: >> >> I'm having an issue where using \+ to search for multiple matches >> isn't working. Am I doing something wrong? >> >> >> >> I have GNU ed 1.14.2 installed on the latest macOS through Homebrew ( >> https://brew.sh). Homebrew installed the executable as ged instead of >> ed, to not overtake the BSD ed that ships with macOS. I mention this so you >> understand why the command I'm running is ged instead of ed. >> >> >> >> I see that 1.15 is in pre-release, but I don't see this issue >> addressed in the changelogs I'm seeing in the archives of this list. >> >> >> >> Here are steps to reproduce: >> >> >> >> $ ged -v >> >> # Let's add a couple of lines. >> >> a >> >> foobar >> >> bazfoo >> >> . >> >> # Great! Now, let's search for "o". >> >> g/o/ >> >> foobar >> >> bazfoo >> >> # Both lines match. Perfect. Now, let's search for multiple "o"s. >> >> g/o\+/ >> >> # Not found? :-( >> >> q >> >> ? >> >> Warning: buffer modified >> >> q >> >> >> >> Proof of version: >> >> >> >> $ ged -V >> >> GNU ed 1.14.2 >> >> Copyright (C) 1994 Andrew L. Moore. >> >> Copyright (C) 2017 Antonio Diaz Diaz. >> >> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later < >> http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> >> >> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. >> >> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> bug-ed mailing list >> >> bug-ed@gnu.org >> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ed >> >
_______________________________________________ bug-ed mailing list bug-ed@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ed
