[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#126434: ITP: super-sed -- An enhanced version of sed

> > Is there a good reason why the super-sed enhancements are not part of
> > the regular GNU sed?

Here are them in order of importance:

1) Lack of response from the maintainer.  The bug fixes (not feature
enhancements) and the Examples section of the manual were all
submitted to Ken Pizzini, and I signed the copyright FSF papers,
but they were never made part of a released version or even a
CVS repository.

2) Experimental-ness of a few changes.  The regex matchings
must be verified to be configure-proof on as many architectures
as possible, so that installing it does not wreak havoc on a build
configuration.  For example, sed 3.52 is not perfect under Windows,
where it cannot configure sed 3.53 (not yet out).

3) Worse i18n support because of the separate regex matching
library.  FSF considers i18n and multibyte character support
very important.  Aid in merging back the UTF-8 support to PCRE,
and in using it together with iconv, would be great (also to merge
back with PCRE, from which I've forked in order to add a little
more performance and POSIX regexp support).


Reply to: