> > I would love to know what it is. The regex isn't that complex, and > > regex's in Perl shouldn't have really changed between 5.005_02 and > > 5.005_03. Hmmmmm.... > > I can repeat the same effect on another machine with Red Hat > 5.1 (also 5.005_02). > > Are we going to raise the entry barrier for new and old > developers even higher or do we want to use a more portable > solution?
What makes you think the awk solution is any more portable than the Perl solution? I would much rather determine what is happening than to just give up on the Perl solution. Please take a look at the definition of those functions and make sure they actually match the regex. You could try upgrading your Perl version. If that doesn't solve the problem then at least we can rule out one problem. You could also try stepping through the perl code to find the problem. Giving up on the Perl solution because it has a bug is not a good idea. Giving up on the Perl solution because we don't want to require Perl, is fine, but we have other solutions that do not require people to have perl. This also needs to work on Windows, and that means that we need to test the awk script on Windows, and we need to find out from Will Rowe why he didn't use sed and awk to fix his original problem. This is a useless conversation until we have those answers. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 406 29th St. San Francisco, CA 94131 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
