Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:56:40 -0400
From:      Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: eee-dee anyone?
Message-ID:  <441s2o9zrr.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190330035113.65fc995f.freebsd@edvax.de> (Polytropon's message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2019 03:51:13 +0100")
References:  <23e162e23288d9a2e498df5f40488bb8@kathe.in> <44muld9su4.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20190330035113.65fc995f.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> writes:

> I think you're confusing vi and ex here (which are the same
> executable), but ed is something different (a different program).
> But I think the reason for this confusion is that using ed
> feels like using vi's ex mode or the ex standalone program. :-)

Yes, definitely.

Because it's described by POSIX, ed(1) is with us to stay. Because it
has non-trivial differences between POSIX and BSD versions (which have
bitten me in the past), I use sed(1) regardless of whether ed would have
done the job. I suspect that is a common pattern.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?441s2o9zrr.fsf>