Re: bin/50111: sed does not support \n newline in replacement patterns.

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/50111; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
To: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
Cc: Anthony Howe <achowe%snert.com@localhost>, gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost,
        gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: bin/50111: sed does not support \n newline in replacement patterns.
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 13:45:19 +0700

     Date:        Sun, 2 Aug 2015 00:10:10 -0400
     From:        christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
     Message-ID:  <20150802041010.5549717FDAB%rebar.astron.com@localhost>
 
 On Aug 1,  5:19pm, achowe%snert.com@localhost (Anthony Howe) apparently wrote:
 
 ["apparently" because I have not seen the message yet - just Christos' reply
 to it - so if I am missing anything, apologies].
 
   | So you're happy to introduce some GNU tools, like GNU grep, but not sed.
 
 First, I am not a NetBSD developer, so the "you're happy" was not
 justified - I'm just a user stating an opinion, what NetBSD decide to
 do is up to the developers (and if necessary, the core group).
 
 And second, you presume too much, I would much prefer no GNU code at all,
 or at the very least, no GPL code at all (which probably means much the
 same).   Unfortunately, sometimes there is little choice given the
 resources available.
 
   | Or move tools a little bit forward into 21st century.
 
 Quite happy to do that.   Of course, we would have to agree which way is
 forward.   Adding unnecessary alternative methods is not forward, that
 just adds confusion.   One way that works (especially when it is consistent
 with the other commands that add multiple lines) is sufficient.
 
   | Happy to adopt GNU -- options,
 
 Not at all, they're all stupid.   Anything that can't be controlled with
 less than 26 options should almost certainly be split into multiple commands.
 
 kre