This is wrong since it modifies line outside of the designated range by indiscriminately deleting dots.

If, as I suspect, the dots in the data are placeholders for irrelevant data, then this solution which depends on literal dots is wrong in a second way.

Regards,
Alister

---------- Post updated at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous update was at 12:27 PM ----------

I'm curious. Besides GNU (and perhaps Busybox, which emulates GNU whenever their minimalist mission allows), which sed implementations support \>?


That sed script is not equivalent to the awk solution. If the data ends when in mid-range, it will print (accumulated) lines which the awk alternative would not have.

Not a one-liner, but it's the most straightforward approach which behaves analogously:

Code:

#n

/^>kump/ {
        :top
        n
        /^>/! b top
}
p

Regards,
Alister