The following issue has been SUBMITTED. ====================================================================== https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1804 ====================================================================== Reported By: calestyo Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: Issue 8 drafts Issue ID: 1804 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: New Name: Christoph Anton Mitterer Organization: User Reference: Section: sed Page Number: 3356, ff. Line Number: 114143, ff. Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2024-01-27 04:47 UTC Last Modified: 2024-01-27 04:47 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: still some minor clarifications in the sed RE description Description: Hey.
Not sure whether we had that already when we revised the sed description, at least I couldn't find that particular point being mentioned and rejected. Desired Action: Lines 114143-114145 say: > The escape sequence '\n' shall match a <newline> embedded in > the pattern space. A literal <newline> shall not be used in > the RE of a context address or in the substitute function. 1) First and nitpicking, the "substitute function" is IMO not really defined (in the sense that something says it means the s command). Most places in the text simply use the letter of the command and "command", so maybe we should do that here, too. 2) The sentence "A literal <newline> shall not be used in the RE of a context address or in the substitute function." is IMO wrong: I would interpret it as: > A literal <newline> shall not be used in > - the RE of a context address > - in the substitute function The first part is correct, but, the second part "not … in the substitute function)" is AFAIU only half the truth respectively amgiuous: - it must not be used in the RE part of a s-command - but may be used in the replacement part of that (see line 114277, ff.) I'd clarify that by something like: > A literal <newline> shall not be used in the RE of a context > address or s command. or better: > A literal <newline> shall not be used in the RE of a context > address or that of a s command. or: > A literal <newline> shall not be used in the RE of a context > address or the RE of a s command. 3) Should there be any wording about whether a literal <newline> is allowed in the y command? The description of y itself doesn't say that, but it says that <backslash>n is taken as <newline>, so I'd be tempted to assume that a literal <newline> is not allowed in it. 4) Speaking of which, in line 114143 the text uses the wording "escape sequence '\n'", whereas in 114309 it uses "a <backslash> followed by an 'n'". Cosmetically, that should maybe be aligned (with me personally preferring the former form). Thanks, Chris ====================================================================== Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2024-01-27 04:47 calestyo New Issue 2024-01-27 04:47 calestyo Name => Christoph Anton Mitterer 2024-01-27 04:47 calestyo Section => sed 2024-01-27 04:47 calestyo Page Number => 3356, ff. 2024-01-27 04:47 calestyo Line Number => 114143, ff. ======================================================================
