Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:38:51 +0200 From: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: BSD grep fixes Message-ID: <4C50874B.4010000@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86wrsfk3oy.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <AANLkTimJiV1s3KNsCKsqT_dNiqMyRuOFpK47AD4QyMUO@mail.gmail.com> <4C5040E8.3050304@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTi=d0Ev_JwE5AFHNMSyPrWYTd7PYTSGn2W91prHA@mail.gmail.com> <4C504DEA.9070405@FreeBSD.org> <86wrsfk3oy.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Em 2010.07.28. 17:48, Dag-Erling Smørgrav escreveu: > Gabor Kovesdan<gabor@FreeBSD.org> writes: > >> b. f.<bf1783@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I don't think that the current behavior of bsdgrep is necessarily bad >>> -- in fact it seems to me to be simple and intuitive: nothing is >>> excluded or included implicitly, and (I think) the last match wins, >>> unlike in gnu grep. >>> >> Ok, thanks, then I'll just document it. >> > Uh, no. GNU grep's behavior is consistent with just about everything > else that has --include / --exclude options, e.g. tar and rsync. Please > change BSD grep's behavior to match GNU grep's. > Ok, thanks for mentioning this. I already have a patch to implement the same behaviour, I'll discuss it with my mentor and fix soon. Gabor
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C50874B.4010000>