> > In any case, if anyone knows how we could achieve the same without using > > external commands, please let me know and I'll change it (in the meantime I'll > > keep searching for alternatives too). If after a reasonable amount of time none > > of us manages to find a solution I suggest to leave it as it is now. > > I already said that this is good enough for now, didn't I? But see > below, and do not use it, it should work but it is uglier than a > simple single liner pipe. Hats off to the clever usage of "???..." as a regex to remove the characters that are not part of the desired substring. > > Should this be considered enough test for backwards compatibility? > > Yes, with a bit to extend the proposed log message to help #1, and a > bit of comments next to the test cases to help #2. Good idea. I'll add both to v6. Thanks for your feedback!
