Hi.

> Because '+' is not a special character in basic regular expressions,
> it doesn't need to be escaped.  A problem is that some regex
> implementations consider '\+' as two normal characters, '\' and '+',
> while others consider it as '+'.  Is it okay to apply the patch above,
> or is there any chance that the patch breaks yet another regex
> implementation?

SUSv3 says pax(1)'s "-s replstr" uses BRE.  So I think your change is
okay (and better than the current one, definitely).

Masao