[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mention lgrep and rgrep in the docstring for grep
From: |
Jan Djärv |
Subject: |
Re: mention lgrep and rgrep in the docstring for grep |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:03:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207) |
Kim F. Storm skrev:
> Jan Djärv <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Richard Stallman skrev:
>>> For doing a recursive `grep', sure the `rgrep' command. For running
>>> `grep' in the current directory sure `lgrep'.
>>>
>>> If we change that to
>>>
>>> For doing a recursive `grep', see the `rgrep' command. For running
>>> `grep' in the current directory see `lgrep'.
>>>
>>> then it would be good.
>> I am confused. What does lgrep really do that grep doesn't? "in the
>> current directory" doesn't seem to be the case, specifying */* to
>> lgrep is perfectly OK. lgrep seems to set -i (case independent) by
>> default whereas grep doesn't. Is that the difference?
>
> That is one difference (actually, -i is set conditionally from
case-fold-search).
>
> Also M-x lgrep works more like C-u M-x grep, than a plain grep.
>
> But the main reason for lgrep is it's interface is modelled after the rgrep
> interface, prompting (and using different input histories) for each argument.
>
> So some of the specific aspects of rgrep also applies to lgrep
> (such as the grep-files-aliases feature).
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
But then I think that
"For running `grep' in the current directory see `lgrep'."
is badly worded. M-x grep also runs grep in the current directory.
Jan D.