孙世龙 sunshilong <sunshilong369@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thank you for your detailed explanation. > >>There is not much room for the line-level "--not" operator to >>participate in this picture. > After I have carefully read your explanation again and again. > Maybe, I think there is a way to achieve this goal. > Please point out if there is something wrong. Sorry, it is currently not in the area of interest for me to examine an extensive rewrite of the "grep" machinery for unknown benefit. The cost-benefit ratio does not look too great to just add "X && !Y" support to existing "X && Y" logic. If we were seriously extending the machinery, I'd rather see us shooting for even more generic boolean expression support, not just "our --all-match currently requires all of the AND-ed terms to positively match, but lets make it possible to require some of these terms not to fire at all".
