Peter Seebach wrote:
> 
> Would anyone be opposed to replaing gawk with mawk?  mawk is smaller,
> faster, and cleaner.  It has fewer features, but most of the "features"
> it lacks are in perl anyway.  :)

I guess it would depend on which features I lost. Forcing one to use perl
to get back the features doesn't sound like much of a cost savings, IMHO.
:-) 


Harry
waddell@caravan.com