WG15 Defect Report Ref: 9945-2-35.1
Topic: Sed editing commands


This is an approved interpretation of 9945-2:1993.

.

Last update: 1997-05-20


								9945-2-35.1

 _____________________________________________________________________________


	Topic:			Sed editing commands
	Relevant Sections:	4.55.7.3
	Classification:		Unaddressed Issues


Defect Report:
-----------------------

Reference: Page 410, Section 4.55.7.3, "sed Editing Commands".


(i) Was it the intent of the standard to not describe that multiple
commands may be entered on a single line by interspersing the
commands with semi-colons?


(ii) Lines 8784-8785:

Does the standard require white space before the wfile
argument to the w flag to the substitute command?


(iii) Lines 8794-8802:

Was it the intent of the standard to ignore that the y
command has historically used the string '\n' to cause
sed to insert a newline into the string??


(iv) Lines 8803-8806:

It's unclear from the standard what happens when the "command"
is itself the "!" character, i.e. what if the user enters:

	[2addr]!!!!!

Please clarify this.


(Keith Bostic)


WG15 response for 9945-2:1993 
-----------------------------------


(i) The purpose of the interpretation process is not to determine intent.
Using ; in SED to separate commands would be a legitimate extension, 
however in a few cases, example: the "w" command, the standard 
would require that the ; be interpreted as part of the "wfile" 
unless there was white space between "wfile" and the ;.

The standard is unclear on these issues, and no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations
based on this.  This is being referred to the sponsor.

(ii) The standard is unclear on these issues, and no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations
based on this.  This is being referred to the sponsor.

(iii) The standard is unclear on these issues, and no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations
based on this.  This is being referred to the sponsor.

(iv) The behavior of [[2addr]!!!!! is unspecified.
The standard is unclear on these issues, and no conformance
distinction can be made between alternative implementations
based on this.  This is being referred to the sponsor.

     
The behavior of [[2addr]!!!!! is unspecified.

Rationale for Interpretation:
-----------------------------
None.
 _____________________________________________________________________________