Re: Confusing/unclear documentation of Sed back references

Eric Blake wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > It certainly can't be considered portable.  Not even in bleeding edge
> > systems.
> 
> I agree that it is not portable to older systems, but DOES work on
> existing GNU and BSD sed implementations (even if it is undocumented in
> GNU sed).

It only exists in GNU in unreleased software?  That doesn't count.
After there is a GNU sed release with it then it exists.  Until then
it is simply a proposal.  Because it is possible for any particular
feature to be different or removed in the actual release.

Cool that it exists already in *BSD!

Bob