Yes, you must mention the filename on the command line instead of redirecting or piping it. My version is 4.1.2, and I am not sure how long this option has been available. You are right about the dangers of redirecting both input and output using the same file, but I guess if you know about the -i option you might not be tempted to do that. On Tue, 3 May 2005, Laura Eaves wrote: > This may be a newer implementation of sed. The one I ran while working on > the said project (no pun intended) did indeed have a silent buffer limit and > the bug was a real bear to find but easy to fix -- we just changed to awk, > which is more flexible and powerful than sed. > I hadn't heard of the -i option, but I don't deny it exists. > But my question is this: don't you have to put the file on the command line > when using -i rather than just redirecting with the shell > sign? > So you'd presumably have > sed -i pattern filename > and sed would edit filename in place. > Nice feature. > > But note that clobbering an input file by naming it also as the output file > is a common mistake newbies make with many commands and it is a good idea to > point it out so the user will beware. > > Cheers. > --le -- The Moon is Waning Crescent (25% of Full) "Things are in the saddle, and they ride mankind." Ralph Waldo Emerson Visit my download site at http://www.mhcable.com/~chuckh
