On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote:
> On 15/10/15 18:12, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Pádraig Brady <p...@draigbrady.com> wrote:
>>> On 15/10/15 17:18, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>> On 15/10/15 16:13, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>>> Here's a small improvement:
>>>>
>>>>> # Strip that part off for the following comparison.
>>>>> clean_rm_err_()
>>>>> {
>>>>> - sed "s/.*rm: /rm: /; \
>>>>> - s/\(rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on\).*$/\1 '\/'/"
>>>>> + sed 's,.*\(rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on\).*$,\1
>>>>> '"'/',"
>>>>> }
>>>
>>> Actually I'm not sure the combined works as we need
>>> to match against multiple lines starting with "rm:..."
>>> See "exp" below in the script.
>>
>> Good points.
>> My primary reaction was to the use of double quotes and "/" as the delimiter.
>>
>> Adjusting for that yields this:
>>
>> - sed "s/.*rm: /rm: /; \
>> - s/\(rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on\).*$/\1 '\/'/"
>> + sed 's/.*rm: /rm: /
>> + s,\(rm: it is dangerous to operate recursively on\).*$,\1 '"'/',"
>>
>> Worth it?
>
> How about I add it to my "various cleanups and typos" patch
> that I'm accumulating and will apply periodically?
Or just discard.
