Re: [PATCH 2/2] t9200: avoid grep on non-ASCII data

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:43:45PM +0000, John Keeping wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 04:15:31PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
>> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
>> > > GNU grep 2.23 detects the input used in this test as binary data so it
>> > > does not work for extracting lines from a file.  We could add the "-a"
>> > > option to force grep to treat the input as text, but not all
>> > > implementations support that.  Instead, use sed to extract the desired
>> > > lines since it will always treat its input as text.
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk>
>> > > ---
>> > > diff --git a/t/t9200-git-cvsexportcommit.sh b/t/t9200-git-cvsexportcommit.sh
>> > > @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ exit 1
>> > >  check_entries () {
>> > >         # $1 == directory, $2 == expected
>> > > -       grep '^/' "$1/CVS/Entries" | sort | cut -d/ -f2,3,5 >actual
>> > > +       sed -ne '\!^/!p' "$1/CVS/Entries" | sort | cut -d/ -f2,3,5 >actual
>> > 
>> > This works with BSD sed, but double negatives are confusing. Have you
>> > considered this instead?
>> > 
>> >     sed -ne '/^\//p' ...
>> 
>> What do you mean double negatives?  Do you mean using "!" as an
>> alternative delimiter?  I find changing delimters is normally simpler
>> than following multiple levels of quoting for escaping slashes, although
>> in this case it's simple enough that it doesn't make much difference.
>
> I agree that changing delimiters is much nicer than backslashes. But I
> wonder if using "!" is more confusing than it needs to be, given its
> other meanings.
>
> I dunno. I admit that the backslash threw me off, too (since it needs
> escaped in interactive shells, I first assumed that's what was going
> on). Using backslash to select the delimiter was new to me. I've usually
> seen:
>
>   s!/foo/!/bar/!
>
> which is arguably a little more clear. Too bad we cannot do:
>
>   m!/foo!
>
> which I think reads better. Oh well. Maybe:
>
>   sed -ne '\#^/#p'
>
> would be more readable, but I'm just bikeshedding at this point.  The
> grep invocation really was the most clear. :-/