httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Basant Kumar kukreja <Basant.Kukr...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: svn commit: r691418 [2/2] - in/httpd/httpd/trunk:./docs/manual/mod/ modules/filters/
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:40:31 GMT
Patch is attached. I have tested the patch. It now prints \10 and \11 for
character values 0x8 and 0x9.

Regards,
Basant.

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:00:42PM +0200, "Plüm, Rüdiger, VF-Group" wrote:
>  
> 
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Basant.Kukreja@Sun.COM 
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. September 2008 15:54
> > An: dev@httpd.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: svn commit: r691418 [2/2] - 
> > in/httpd/httpd/trunk:./docs/manual/mod/ modules/filters/
> > 
> 
> > > > Can you elaborate why you chose "<" and ">". I could not 
> > think of any
> > > > reasons behind it.
> > > 
> > > Because these characters are currently displayed by sed and 
> > I saw no reason to change
> > > it.
> > > 
> > > > sed's man page says :
> > > >     (2)l            List the pattern space on the standard  out-
> > > >                      put  in  an  unambiguous  form. Non-printing
> > > >                      characters are spelled in  two  digit  ASCII
> > > >                      and long lines are folded.
> > > > 
> > > > So 0x8 and 0x9 char values, which I believe are non printable 
> > > > characters,
> > > > should be printed into *two* digit ASCII. So \10 and \11 
> > looks to me
> > > > as conforming to man page.
> > > 
> > > As said displaying two digit ASCII's also makes sense and 
> > conforms to the man
> > > page. So go for it.
> > > BTW: Shouldn't it be \08 and \09 for 0x8 and 0x9 instead of 
> > \10 and \11 ?
> > If we notice, how other characters are printed then sed code 
> > is using octal
> > numbers. After \17 it changes to \20, \21. Similarly After 
> > \27 it changes to
> > \30, \31 etc. So based on the above pattern, \10 and \11 
> > seems to be more
> > consistent to me.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out. I missed that these were actual octal numbers.
> So yes, you are correct.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rüdiger
> 

Mime
View raw message