Well, mine doesn't, for sure. Transcript:
qwurx [shmem] ~> perl -le 'print "line $_" for 1..15' >| linenumber.tx
+t
qwurx [shmem] ~> sed -ne '10,15p;5p' linenumber.txt
line 5
line 10
line 11
line 12
line 13
line 14
line 15
qwurx [shmem] ~> which sed
/bin/sed
qwurx [shmem] ~> dpkg -S `which sed`
sed: /bin/sed
qwurx [shmem] ~> dpkg -l sed
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/T
+rig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Architecture Description
+++-===============-============-============-========================
+============
ii sed 4.2.2-4+b1 amd64 The GNU sed stream edito
+r
Show evidence of yours.
In defence of my oh-so-cool perl snippet -
- l is less typing than sed -ne
- on subsequent calls with the same file, I need not specify the file as argument
- it is the one script which needed a CHECK block
And that's pretty much all about that. If I were better at typing, two of them three arguments would be quite pointless ;-)
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
|