FW: tr command suddenly behaves differently

FW: tr command suddenly behaves differently

[Dave Korn]

On 24 September 2006 14:38, Eric Blake wrote:

> According to Jim Easton on 9/24/2006 1:02 AM:
>> Pardon me for putting my oar in but the syntax of tr varies quite a
>> bit from system to system.  It has been my experience that the only
>> reliable way of expressing the above so that it will work on cygwin,
>> linux, solaris, sun4, aix and irix  is the following.  It's probably more
>> efficient to boot :-). 
>> 
>> tr 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ' 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'
> 
> More reliable, yes; in fact, this is what autoconf uses under the hood for
> constructs like AS_TR_SH.  But POSIX requires tr and sed to understand
> [:upper:] and [:lower:], and to understand it in the context of the
> current locale (there are some locales where blindly using the 26 letters
> of English is the wrong behavior, and where you really do mean [:upper:]).

  Of course, the *real* reason not to use "tr [A-Z] [a-z]" is for EBCDIC
compatibility... 

tr 'ABCDEFGHI­ ôöòóõ}JKLMNOPQR¹ûüùúÿ\÷STUVWXYZ' \
   'abcdefghi«»ðýþ±°jklmnopqrªºæ¸Æ¤µ~stuvwxyz' 

  That's gotta hurt your umlauts...

    cheers,
      DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....