How do I grep for lines containing either of two words, but not both?












7















I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.



So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.






grep







share|improve this question









New contributor




Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    7















    I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.



    So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.






    grep







    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      7












      7








      7








      I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.



      So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.






      grep







      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I'm trying to use grep to show only lines containing either of the two words, if only one of them appears in the line, but not if they are in the same line.



      So far I've tried grep pattern1 | grep pattern2 | ... but didn't get the result I expected.






      grep




      grep






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 20 mins ago









      Olorin

      3,2441417




      3,2441417






      New contributor




      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 16 hours ago









      TrasmosTrasmos

      361




      361




      New contributor




      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Trasmos is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          16














          A tool other than grep is the way to go.



          Using perl, for instance, the command would be:



          perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'


          perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).



          This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.



          Or, even shorter, with awk:



          awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'


          or for versions of awk that don't have xor:



          awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`





          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

            – steeldriver
            14 hours ago






          • 1





            @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

            – Chris
            11 hours ago











          • Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

            – Jim L.
            5 hours ago











          • @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

            – Chris
            4 hours ago








          • 2





            @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

            – wjandrea
            4 hours ago





















          7














          Try with egrep 



          egrep  'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'





          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

            – glenn jackman
            14 hours ago






          • 5





            Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

            – glenn jackman
            14 hours ago











          • That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

            – Grump
            12 hours ago











          • I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

            – glenn jackman
            11 hours ago



















          5














          With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.



          $ cat testfile.txt
          
abc
          
def
          
abc def
          
abc 123 def
          
1234
          
5678
          
1234 def abc
          
def abc
          

          
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
          
abc
          
def





          share|improve this answer





















          • 2





            @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

            – Haxiel
            15 hours ago






          • 1





            The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

            – Chris
            14 hours ago











          • @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

            – Haxiel
            13 hours ago



















          1














          In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as



          (A and not B)



          or



          (B and not A)



          Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:



          $ cat << EOF > foo
          
> a b
          
> a
          
> b
          
> c a
          
> c b
          
> b a
          
> b c
          
> EOF
          
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
          
a
          
c a
          
b
          
c b
          
b c





          share|improve this answer





















          • 1





            This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

            – Sparhawk
            4 hours ago











          • @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

            – Jim L.
            4 hours ago













          • Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

            – Sparhawk
            3 hours ago






          • 1





            @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

            – Jim L.
            3 hours ago



















          0














          awk solution -- for completion's sake:



          awk 'gsub("foo|bar", "&")==1'


          exactly the same trick works in perl:



          perl -ne 'print if s/(foo|bar)/1/g==1'




          share























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "106"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497674%2fhow-do-i-grep-for-lines-containing-either-of-two-words-but-not-both%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes








            5 Answers
            5






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            16














            A tool other than grep is the way to go.



            Using perl, for instance, the command would be:



            perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'


            perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).



            This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.



            Or, even shorter, with awk:



            awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'


            or for versions of awk that don't have xor:



            awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`





            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

              – steeldriver
              14 hours ago






            • 1





              @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

              – Chris
              11 hours ago











            • Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

              – Jim L.
              5 hours ago











            • @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

              – Chris
              4 hours ago








            • 2





              @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

              – wjandrea
              4 hours ago


















            16














            A tool other than grep is the way to go.



            Using perl, for instance, the command would be:



            perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'


            perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).



            This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.



            Or, even shorter, with awk:



            awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'


            or for versions of awk that don't have xor:



            awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`





            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

              – steeldriver
              14 hours ago






            • 1





              @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

              – Chris
              11 hours ago











            • Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

              – Jim L.
              5 hours ago











            • @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

              – Chris
              4 hours ago








            • 2





              @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

              – wjandrea
              4 hours ago
















            16












            16








            16







            A tool other than grep is the way to go.



            Using perl, for instance, the command would be:



            perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'


            perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).



            This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.



            Or, even shorter, with awk:



            awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'


            or for versions of awk that don't have xor:



            awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`





            share|improve this answer















            A tool other than grep is the way to go.



            Using perl, for instance, the command would be:



            perl -ne 'print if /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/'


            perl -ne runs the command given over each line of stdin, which in this case prints the line if it matches /pattern1/ xor /pattern2/, or in other words matches one pattern but not the other (exclusive or).



            This works for the pattern in either order, and should have better performance than multiple invocations of grep, and is less typing as well.



            Or, even shorter, with awk:



            awk 'xor(/pattern1/,/pattern2/)'


            or for versions of awk that don't have xor:



            awk '/pattern1/+/pattern2/==1`






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 11 hours ago

























            answered 15 hours ago









            ChrisChris

            572314




            572314








            • 1





              Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

              – steeldriver
              14 hours ago






            • 1





              @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

              – Chris
              11 hours ago











            • Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

              – Jim L.
              5 hours ago











            • @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

              – Chris
              4 hours ago








            • 2





              @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

              – wjandrea
              4 hours ago
















            • 1





              Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

              – steeldriver
              14 hours ago






            • 1





              @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

              – Chris
              11 hours ago











            • Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

              – Jim L.
              5 hours ago











            • @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

              – Chris
              4 hours ago








            • 2





              @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

              – wjandrea
              4 hours ago










            1




            1





            Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

            – steeldriver
            14 hours ago





            Nice - is the Awk xor available in GNU Awk only?

            – steeldriver
            14 hours ago




            1




            1





            @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

            – Chris
            11 hours ago





            @steeldriver I think it's GNU only, yes. Or at least it's missing on older versions. You can replace it with /pattern1/+/pattern2/==1 ir xor is missing.

            – Chris
            11 hours ago













            Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

            – Jim L.
            5 hours ago





            Just curious, how could those methods be modified to be word-senstive? The OP uses the phrase "two words".

            – Jim L.
            5 hours ago













            @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

            – Chris
            4 hours ago







            @JimL. You can use negative lookaround to make sure that the word you are searching for does not come before or after another word character (i.e. alphanumeric or underscore). In perl, if you want to match the word "peach," it would be /(?<![w])peach(?![w])/. The syntax for this varies quite a bit between perl and other regex implementations, though, and not all implementations have [w] as a pre-defined character class, so you may have to do something longer like [A-Za-z0-9_] in some implementations.

            – Chris
            4 hours ago






            2




            2





            @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

            – wjandrea
            4 hours ago







            @JimL. You could put word boundaries (b) in the patterns themselves, i.e. bwordb.

            – wjandrea
            4 hours ago















            7














            Try with egrep 



            egrep  'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'





            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago






            • 5





              Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago











            • That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

              – Grump
              12 hours ago











            • I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

              – glenn jackman
              11 hours ago
















            7














            Try with egrep 



            egrep  'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'





            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago






            • 5





              Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago











            • That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

              – Grump
              12 hours ago











            • I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

              – glenn jackman
              11 hours ago














            7












            7








            7







            Try with egrep 



            egrep  'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'





            share|improve this answer















            Try with egrep 



            egrep  'pattern1|pattern2' file | grep -v -e 'pattern1.*pattern2' -e 'pattern2.*pattern1'






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 12 hours ago

























            answered 15 hours ago









            msp9011msp9011

            4,17544064




            4,17544064








            • 1





              can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago






            • 5





              Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago











            • That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

              – Grump
              12 hours ago











            • I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

              – glenn jackman
              11 hours ago














            • 1





              can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago






            • 5





              Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

              – glenn jackman
              14 hours ago











            • That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

              – Grump
              12 hours ago











            • I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

              – glenn jackman
              11 hours ago








            1




            1





            can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

            – glenn jackman
            14 hours ago





            can also be written as grep -e foo -e bar | grep -v -e 'foo.*bar' -e 'bar.*foo'

            – glenn jackman
            14 hours ago




            5




            5





            Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

            – glenn jackman
            14 hours ago





            Also, note from the grep man page: Direct invocation as either egrep or fgrep is deprecated -- prefer grep -E

            – glenn jackman
            14 hours ago













            That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

            – Grump
            12 hours ago





            That isn't in my OS @glennjackman

            – Grump
            12 hours ago













            I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

            – glenn jackman
            11 hours ago





            I'm on linux, so GNU coreutils

            – glenn jackman
            11 hours ago











            5














            With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.



            $ cat testfile.txt
            
abc
            
def
            
abc def
            
abc 123 def
            
1234
            
5678
            
1234 def abc
            
def abc
            

            
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
            
abc
            
def





            share|improve this answer





















            • 2





              @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

              – Haxiel
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

              – Chris
              14 hours ago











            • @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

              – Haxiel
              13 hours ago
















            5














            With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.



            $ cat testfile.txt
            
abc
            
def
            
abc def
            
abc 123 def
            
1234
            
5678
            
1234 def abc
            
def abc
            

            
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
            
abc
            
def





            share|improve this answer





















            • 2





              @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

              – Haxiel
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

              – Chris
              14 hours ago











            • @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

              – Haxiel
              13 hours ago














            5












            5








            5







            With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.



            $ cat testfile.txt
            
abc
            
def
            
abc def
            
abc 123 def
            
1234
            
5678
            
1234 def abc
            
def abc
            

            
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
            
abc
            
def





            share|improve this answer















            With GNU grep, you could pass both words to grep and then remove the lines containing both the patterns.



            $ cat testfile.txt
            
abc
            
def
            
abc def
            
abc 123 def
            
1234
            
5678
            
1234 def abc
            
def abc
            

            
$ grep -w -e 'abc' -e 'def' testfile.txt | grep -v -e 'abc.*def' -e 'def.*abc'
            
abc
            
def






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 13 hours ago

























            answered 15 hours ago









            HaxielHaxiel

            1,9451710




            1,9451710








            • 2





              @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

              – Haxiel
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

              – Chris
              14 hours ago











            • @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

              – Haxiel
              13 hours ago














            • 2





              @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

              – Haxiel
              15 hours ago






            • 1





              The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

              – Chris
              14 hours ago











            • @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

              – Haxiel
              13 hours ago








            2




            2





            @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

            – Haxiel
            15 hours ago





            @msp9011 I didn't think of that possibility at first. It's fixed now, thanks!

            – Haxiel
            15 hours ago




            1




            1





            The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

            – Chris
            14 hours ago





            The ^.* and .*$ are unnecessary and harmful to performance.

            – Chris
            14 hours ago













            @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

            – Haxiel
            13 hours ago





            @Chris Thanks for the feedback, I've edited my answer.

            – Haxiel
            13 hours ago











            1














            In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as



            (A and not B)



            or



            (B and not A)



            Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:



            $ cat << EOF > foo
            
> a b
            
> a
            
> b
            
> c a
            
> c b
            
> b a
            
> b c
            
> EOF
            
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
            
a
            
c a
            
b
            
c b
            
b c





            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

              – Sparhawk
              4 hours ago











            • @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

              – Jim L.
              4 hours ago













            • Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

              – Sparhawk
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

              – Jim L.
              3 hours ago
















            1














            In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as



            (A and not B)



            or



            (B and not A)



            Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:



            $ cat << EOF > foo
            
> a b
            
> a
            
> b
            
> c a
            
> c b
            
> b a
            
> b c
            
> EOF
            
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
            
a
            
c a
            
b
            
c b
            
b c





            share|improve this answer





















            • 1





              This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

              – Sparhawk
              4 hours ago











            • @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

              – Jim L.
              4 hours ago













            • Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

              – Sparhawk
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

              – Jim L.
              3 hours ago














            1












            1








            1







            In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as



            (A and not B)



            or



            (B and not A)



            Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:



            $ cat << EOF > foo
            
> a b
            
> a
            
> b
            
> c a
            
> c b
            
> b a
            
> b c
            
> EOF
            
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
            
a
            
c a
            
b
            
c b
            
b c





            share|improve this answer















            In Boolean terms, you're looking for A xor B, which can be written as



            (A and not B)



            or



            (B and not A)



            Given that your question doesn't mention that you are concerned with the order of the output so long as the matching lines are shown, the Boolean expansion of A xor B is pretty darn simple in grep:



            $ cat << EOF > foo
            
> a b
            
> a
            
> b
            
> c a
            
> c b
            
> b a
            
> b c
            
> EOF
            
$ grep -w 'a' foo | grep -vw 'b'; grep -w 'b' foo | grep -vw 'a';
            
a
            
c a
            
b
            
c b
            
b c






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 4 hours ago

























            answered 6 hours ago









            Jim L.Jim L.

            1112




            1112








            • 1





              This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

              – Sparhawk
              4 hours ago











            • @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

              – Jim L.
              4 hours ago













            • Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

              – Sparhawk
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

              – Jim L.
              3 hours ago














            • 1





              This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

              – Sparhawk
              4 hours ago











            • @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

              – Jim L.
              4 hours ago













            • Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

              – Sparhawk
              3 hours ago






            • 1





              @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

              – Jim L.
              3 hours ago








            1




            1





            This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

            – Sparhawk
            4 hours ago





            This works, but it will scramble the order of the file.

            – Sparhawk
            4 hours ago













            @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

            – Jim L.
            4 hours ago







            @Sparhawk True, although "scramble" is a harsh word. ;) it lists all the 'a' matches first, in order, then all the 'b' matches next, in order. The OP didn't express any interest in maintaining the order, just show the lines. FAWK, the next step could be sort | uniq.

            – Jim L.
            4 hours ago















            Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

            – Sparhawk
            3 hours ago





            Fair call; I agree my language was inaccurate. I meant to imply that the original order would be changed.

            – Sparhawk
            3 hours ago




            1




            1





            @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

            – Jim L.
            3 hours ago





            @Sparhawk ... And I edited in your observation for full disclosure.

            – Jim L.
            3 hours ago











            0














            awk solution -- for completion's sake:



            awk 'gsub("foo|bar", "&")==1'


            exactly the same trick works in perl:



            perl -ne 'print if s/(foo|bar)/1/g==1'




            share




























              0














              awk solution -- for completion's sake:



              awk 'gsub("foo|bar", "&")==1'


              exactly the same trick works in perl:



              perl -ne 'print if s/(foo|bar)/1/g==1'




              share


























                0












                0








                0







                awk solution -- for completion's sake:



                awk 'gsub("foo|bar", "&")==1'


                exactly the same trick works in perl:



                perl -ne 'print if s/(foo|bar)/1/g==1'




                share













                awk solution -- for completion's sake:



                awk 'gsub("foo|bar", "&")==1'


                exactly the same trick works in perl:



                perl -ne 'print if s/(foo|bar)/1/g==1'





                share











                share


                share










                answered 7 secs ago









                pizdelectpizdelect

                44916




                44916






















                    Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Trasmos is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f497674%2fhow-do-i-grep-for-lines-containing-either-of-two-words-but-not-both%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    CARDNET

                    Image
                    CARDNET は日本カードネットワークが運営するクレジット決済ネットワーク。日本カードネットワークの略称としてもCARDNETが使用されている。 事件・事故 2017年4月15日午前11時8分からクレジットカードの決済がしづらくなる障害が発生した。障害は同日午後5時18分に復旧した。原因は、複数あるCARDNETセンターの拠点のうち1つで、2重化してあるL3スイッチの片方が故障し、1系統にトラフィックが集中したことによる輻輳が発生したため。対処としては、故障したL3スイッチ交換とシステム再起動が行われた [1] 。 出典 ^ 金子寛人 ( 2017年4月17日 ). “CARDNETのクレジット決済に6時間強障害、原因はL3スイッチ故障”. 日経コンピュータ. 2018年10月18日 閲覧。 この項目は、コンピュータに関連した 書きかけの項目 です。この項目を加筆・訂正などしてくださる協力者を求めています（PJ:コンピュータ/P:コンピュータ）。 この項目は、経済に関連した 書きかけの項目 です。この項目を加筆・訂正などしてくださる協力者を求めています（ポータル 経済学、プロジェクト 経済）。 This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
                    Read more

                    Boot-repair Failure: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386

                    Image
                    0 I am on a system dual-booting Windows and Debian (usually using the latter), and a recent Windows update appears to have wreaked havoc on the Debian boot system. I managed to boot Windows again, but not Linux. Following online suggestions, I created a Live USB of Ubuntu, and booted from that. Then I have installed and run the boot-repair utility. The utility instructs me to type several lines including sudo chroot "/mnt/boot-sav/sda6" apt-get purge -y grub*-common grub-common:i386 To which I receive the error E: Unable to locate package grub-common:i386 I am given to understand the issue may have to do with having UEFI vs BIOS (I believe I have UEFI), but do not understand this well. In any case I have subsequently run the boot-repair BootInfo Summary utility which created the following file h...
                    Read more

                    濃尾地震

                    Image
                    濃尾地震 『岐阜市街大地震之図』 歌川国利画 本震 発生日 1891年（明治24年）10月28日 発生時刻 6時38分50秒（JST） 震央 日本 岐阜県本巣郡西根尾村（現・本巣市） 北緯35度35分 東経136度20分（ 地図 ） 規模    マグニチュード（M）8.0 最大震度    震度7： 注1 福井県今立郡鯖江町、愛知県葉栗郡大田島村、東春日井郡勝川村 地震の種類 直下型地震 被害 死傷者数 死者7,273人、負傷者17,175人 注1：当時の震度階級では「激烈」 プロジェクト:地球科学 プロジェクト:災害 テンプレートを表示 濃尾地震 （のうびじしん）は、1891年（明治24年）10月28日に濃尾地方で発生した、日本史上最大の内陸地殻内地震。「 美濃・尾張地震 （みの・おわりじしん）」とも呼ばれている。辛卯の年に発生したことから 辛卯震災 と呼んでいる報告書もある。 目次 1 概要 1.1 震源断層 2 被害 3 各地の震度 4 前兆現象 5 報道 6 学術的な意義 7 地震防災 8 脚注 9 関連項目 10 外部リンク 概要 濃尾地震発生当時の根尾谷断層 濃尾地震を引き起こした根尾谷断層 写真中央を斜めに走る段差が根尾谷断層 濃尾地震は、1891年10月28日6時38分50秒に発生した。震源は、岐阜県本巣郡西根尾村（現・本巣市）、北緯35度35分、東経136度20分付近。河角廣 (1951) は岐阜市付近（北緯35.6度、東経136.6度）に震央を仮定し規模 M K = 7.0 を与え [1] 、マグニチュードは M = 8.4 に換算されているが、明治・大正期の地震については0.5程度大きく見積もられているとされる [2] 。また、震央距離と震度との関係など当時のデータから後にM8.0 [3] とも推定される。アメリカ地質調査所 (USGS) でも8.0としている [4] 。「根尾谷断層帯」が活動した典型的な内陸地殻内地震（いわゆる直下型地震）であり、これは記録が残っている日本の内陸...
                    Read more