Hi Andrew, > For anyone interested in scripting with ed, please consider: > <https://github.com/slewsys/ed>.
Indeed, a fork is one of the options. But I'm more interested in getting features into "mainstream" ed implementation, because that'll be most beneficial for everyone everywhere. > Antonio has hinted that he intends to adopt some of its capabilities, > which include the options -f and -e, external filters, the ability to > edit the output of named pipes, multiple-file support, registers, etc. -f and -e would indeed be perfect and much more preferable than my initial "edscript" suggestion! > An extension inspired by `ex' At this point, I'm not sure I want to venture into ex territory. ex is ex, ed is ed, and conflating the two is confusing. -f is fine—it's (supposedly) a simple and compatible change. > And the list goes on. What this implementation of ed does not adopt is > the branching constructs of sed `b', `t' and `T' since ed has enough > strengths without, Fair! > and higher-level scripting languages like `awk' are > easier to work with. I'm an ed fundamentalist using ed for everything, so I don't necessarily agree, but I see what you mean here and acknowledge the soundness of the point. Best of luck, -- Artyom Bologov https://aartaka.me
