[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bugs about grep
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: bugs about grep |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:48:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 01:06:19PM +0000, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> ?? <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > #cat abc | grep -Fw 10.1.3.3
> > ----no result .
>
> It may not be totally clear from the documentation, but with a bit of
> thinking it can be seen that -F and -w quite certainly can't work
> together. -w applies to regexps, [...]
I beleive that they should work together, and that the bug report is really
valid. And as I'm the maintainer, this opinion has a certain value. ;-)
The long name of the option `--word-regexp' is not good, I admit.
The bug will eventually be squashed.
For the meantime, the qorkaround you propose is good:
> grep -w '10\.1\.3\.3' < abc
One more comment:
> whereas -F says that [...] the program effectively isn't "grep",
> then --- it's "fgrep".
this wording is a bit misleading. fgrep and egrep are not standardized by
POSIX, they are provided for compatibility with traditional Unices only.
Current grep release implements fgrep and egrep as a shell wrappers:
$ cat /bin/fgrep
#!/bin/sh
exec grep -F ${1+"$@"}
Thus you should get slowly accustomed to using `grep -F', not `fgrep'.
(The shell wrapper can even present a performance problem if fgrep is
called too often.)
Yours,
Stepan