Grep complete name including dot in the wordCan grep output only specified groupings that match?How to do a grep on remote machine and print out the line which contains those words?How to parse table for pattern if pattern includes spacespassing the results of awk command as a parameterProblem with grep -ogrep command to match the character requiredHow to `grep -v` and also exclude 'n' lines after the match?Browse directory and extract word from folder nameExtract lines from files containing a string but not another in that same lineGrep complete name including dot in pattern
Why was the Sega Genesis marketed as a 16-bit console?
Why is one of Madera Municipal's runways labelled with only "R" on both sides?
Watts vs. Volt Amps
Russian equivalents of "no love lost"
Find the Factorial From the Given Prime Relationship
Is it possible to 'live off the sea'
What is the actual quality of machine translations?
Genetic limitations to learn certain instruments
Can an Aarakocra use a shield while flying?
Investing in a Roth IRA with a Personal Loan?
When conversion from Integer to Single may lose precision
Payment instructions allegedly from HomeAway look fishy to me
Does an ice chest packed full of frozen food need ice?
How does an ordinary object become radioactive?
What makes Ada the language of choice for the ISS's safety-critical systems?
At what point in time did Dumbledore ask Snape for this favor?
How to project 3d image in the planes xy, xz, yz?
"You've got another thing coming" - translation into French
PhD - Well known professor or well known school?
What can plausibly explain many of my very long and low-tech bridges?
Using "subway" as name for London Underground?
Trapping Rain Water
Is the term 'open source' a trademark?
An average heaven where everyone has sexless golden bodies and is bored
Grep complete name including dot in the word
Can grep output only specified groupings that match?How to do a grep on remote machine and print out the line which contains those words?How to parse table for pattern if pattern includes spacespassing the results of awk command as a parameterProblem with grep -ogrep command to match the character requiredHow to `grep -v` and also exclude 'n' lines after the match?Browse directory and extract word from folder nameExtract lines from files containing a string but not another in that same lineGrep complete name including dot in pattern
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
In a ksh
shell script I am using a grep
command to get a specific word as shown below.
$ cat file.txt
abc xyzdef.123 def.jkl mnopqrst
$ grep -o "wdefw" file.txt
xyzdef
def
I want output to be xyzdef.123
and def.jkl
It is not fetching the value after .
Is there any other way to grep
this word also I don't know the exact word to grep
only I know a pattern. I am working on ksh
shell.
shell-script text-processing grep
add a comment |
In a ksh
shell script I am using a grep
command to get a specific word as shown below.
$ cat file.txt
abc xyzdef.123 def.jkl mnopqrst
$ grep -o "wdefw" file.txt
xyzdef
def
I want output to be xyzdef.123
and def.jkl
It is not fetching the value after .
Is there any other way to grep
this word also I don't know the exact word to grep
only I know a pattern. I am working on ksh
shell.
shell-script text-processing grep
add a comment |
In a ksh
shell script I am using a grep
command to get a specific word as shown below.
$ cat file.txt
abc xyzdef.123 def.jkl mnopqrst
$ grep -o "wdefw" file.txt
xyzdef
def
I want output to be xyzdef.123
and def.jkl
It is not fetching the value after .
Is there any other way to grep
this word also I don't know the exact word to grep
only I know a pattern. I am working on ksh
shell.
shell-script text-processing grep
In a ksh
shell script I am using a grep
command to get a specific word as shown below.
$ cat file.txt
abc xyzdef.123 def.jkl mnopqrst
$ grep -o "wdefw" file.txt
xyzdef
def
I want output to be xyzdef.123
and def.jkl
It is not fetching the value after .
Is there any other way to grep
this word also I don't know the exact word to grep
only I know a pattern. I am working on ksh
shell.
shell-script text-processing grep
shell-script text-processing grep
edited May 29 at 8:16
terdon♦
136k33276457
136k33276457
asked May 29 at 4:42
ArnavArnav
212
212
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Looks like you just want the string def
and all non-whitespace characters around it. If so, you can use:
$ grep -Eo 'S*defS*' file.txt
xyzdef.123
def.jkl
The S
means non-whitespace and is supported by GNU grep
with either the -E
or -P
flags.
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like-E
or-P
).
– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grokS
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
add a comment |
Using grep -o
and POSIX character classes:
grep -o '[^[:blank:]]*def[^[:blank:]]*' file.txt
This is essentially what terdon suggests, albeit using slightly different syntax (and no -E
). This would match the string def
and any non-blank characters on either side of that string (a non-blank character is a character that is not a space or a tab).
Alternatively,
tr '[:blank:]' 'n' <file | grep -F 'def'
This just breaks the line down into multiple lines, one line per blank-separated word (where a "blank" is a tab or a space character). Then it applies a plain string match with grep -F
on the generated lines to find the ones that you're interested in.
Your pattern, wdefw
, which with GNU grep
, if using POSIX character class names, is the same as [[:alnum:]_]def[[:alnum:]_]
, requires that the string def
is flanked by a alphanumeric character or underscore on either side. A dot is neither an alphanumeric character nor an underscore.
The pattern also would not match def
if it occurs at the very start or end of a line.
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.
– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
add a comment |
With the attempt you have, you can't match the whole word to be returned. The -o
flag of grep
only returns the matched regex portion defined. Also w
is not a POSIX defined extension for grep
and might be available only in the GNU versions which support the PCRE syntax. On which you could do
grep -oP '(w*)def[.](w*)'
The -P
flag turns on the PCRE regex mode in GNU grep
and the -o
flag returns the whole word matched the regex defined. The regex is translated as match zero or more number of alphanumeric characters followed by def
and a literal .
( enclosed in a bracket expression ) and followed by zero or more number of alphanumeric characters.
Using POSIX character classes for alphanumeric characters would be doing below. But remember the flag -o
is still a GNU extension
grep -o '([[:alnum:]]*)def[.]([[:alnum:]]*)'
Instead of[.]
, better use.
for a literal dot
– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
1
The-E
flag forgrep
, at least on GNUgrep
, also supportsw
.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
1
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone worddef
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the.
in the word, I assumed in the positive casesdef
is always present with the.
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
1
@Philippos: Why do you say.
is better than[.]
?
– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
|
show 4 more comments
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f521663%2fgrep-complete-name-including-dot-in-the-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Looks like you just want the string def
and all non-whitespace characters around it. If so, you can use:
$ grep -Eo 'S*defS*' file.txt
xyzdef.123
def.jkl
The S
means non-whitespace and is supported by GNU grep
with either the -E
or -P
flags.
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like-E
or-P
).
– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grokS
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
add a comment |
Looks like you just want the string def
and all non-whitespace characters around it. If so, you can use:
$ grep -Eo 'S*defS*' file.txt
xyzdef.123
def.jkl
The S
means non-whitespace and is supported by GNU grep
with either the -E
or -P
flags.
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like-E
or-P
).
– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grokS
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
add a comment |
Looks like you just want the string def
and all non-whitespace characters around it. If so, you can use:
$ grep -Eo 'S*defS*' file.txt
xyzdef.123
def.jkl
The S
means non-whitespace and is supported by GNU grep
with either the -E
or -P
flags.
Looks like you just want the string def
and all non-whitespace characters around it. If so, you can use:
$ grep -Eo 'S*defS*' file.txt
xyzdef.123
def.jkl
The S
means non-whitespace and is supported by GNU grep
with either the -E
or -P
flags.
answered May 29 at 8:24
terdon♦terdon
136k33276457
136k33276457
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like-E
or-P
).
– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grokS
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
add a comment |
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like-E
or-P
).
– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grokS
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like
-E
or -P
).– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
Actually this seems to be recognized in GNU grep by default (i.e., without options like
-E
or -P
).– Scott
May 29 at 18:01
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grok
S
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
@Scott huh, so it is. Even busybox grep seems to grok
S
. Still, it isn't in the BRE so better safe than sorry.– terdon♦
May 29 at 18:05
add a comment |
Using grep -o
and POSIX character classes:
grep -o '[^[:blank:]]*def[^[:blank:]]*' file.txt
This is essentially what terdon suggests, albeit using slightly different syntax (and no -E
). This would match the string def
and any non-blank characters on either side of that string (a non-blank character is a character that is not a space or a tab).
Alternatively,
tr '[:blank:]' 'n' <file | grep -F 'def'
This just breaks the line down into multiple lines, one line per blank-separated word (where a "blank" is a tab or a space character). Then it applies a plain string match with grep -F
on the generated lines to find the ones that you're interested in.
Your pattern, wdefw
, which with GNU grep
, if using POSIX character class names, is the same as [[:alnum:]_]def[[:alnum:]_]
, requires that the string def
is flanked by a alphanumeric character or underscore on either side. A dot is neither an alphanumeric character nor an underscore.
The pattern also would not match def
if it occurs at the very start or end of a line.
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.
– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
add a comment |
Using grep -o
and POSIX character classes:
grep -o '[^[:blank:]]*def[^[:blank:]]*' file.txt
This is essentially what terdon suggests, albeit using slightly different syntax (and no -E
). This would match the string def
and any non-blank characters on either side of that string (a non-blank character is a character that is not a space or a tab).
Alternatively,
tr '[:blank:]' 'n' <file | grep -F 'def'
This just breaks the line down into multiple lines, one line per blank-separated word (where a "blank" is a tab or a space character). Then it applies a plain string match with grep -F
on the generated lines to find the ones that you're interested in.
Your pattern, wdefw
, which with GNU grep
, if using POSIX character class names, is the same as [[:alnum:]_]def[[:alnum:]_]
, requires that the string def
is flanked by a alphanumeric character or underscore on either side. A dot is neither an alphanumeric character nor an underscore.
The pattern also would not match def
if it occurs at the very start or end of a line.
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.
– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
add a comment |
Using grep -o
and POSIX character classes:
grep -o '[^[:blank:]]*def[^[:blank:]]*' file.txt
This is essentially what terdon suggests, albeit using slightly different syntax (and no -E
). This would match the string def
and any non-blank characters on either side of that string (a non-blank character is a character that is not a space or a tab).
Alternatively,
tr '[:blank:]' 'n' <file | grep -F 'def'
This just breaks the line down into multiple lines, one line per blank-separated word (where a "blank" is a tab or a space character). Then it applies a plain string match with grep -F
on the generated lines to find the ones that you're interested in.
Your pattern, wdefw
, which with GNU grep
, if using POSIX character class names, is the same as [[:alnum:]_]def[[:alnum:]_]
, requires that the string def
is flanked by a alphanumeric character or underscore on either side. A dot is neither an alphanumeric character nor an underscore.
The pattern also would not match def
if it occurs at the very start or end of a line.
Using grep -o
and POSIX character classes:
grep -o '[^[:blank:]]*def[^[:blank:]]*' file.txt
This is essentially what terdon suggests, albeit using slightly different syntax (and no -E
). This would match the string def
and any non-blank characters on either side of that string (a non-blank character is a character that is not a space or a tab).
Alternatively,
tr '[:blank:]' 'n' <file | grep -F 'def'
This just breaks the line down into multiple lines, one line per blank-separated word (where a "blank" is a tab or a space character). Then it applies a plain string match with grep -F
on the generated lines to find the ones that you're interested in.
Your pattern, wdefw
, which with GNU grep
, if using POSIX character class names, is the same as [[:alnum:]_]def[[:alnum:]_]
, requires that the string def
is flanked by a alphanumeric character or underscore on either side. A dot is neither an alphanumeric character nor an underscore.
The pattern also would not match def
if it occurs at the very start or end of a line.
edited May 29 at 18:06
answered May 29 at 9:08
Kusalananda♦Kusalananda
149k18283471
149k18283471
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.
– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
add a comment |
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.
– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
tr ' t' 'n'
would be more bullet-resistant.– Scott
May 29 at 18:04
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
@Scott Thanks, modified it in that direction.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 18:07
add a comment |
With the attempt you have, you can't match the whole word to be returned. The -o
flag of grep
only returns the matched regex portion defined. Also w
is not a POSIX defined extension for grep
and might be available only in the GNU versions which support the PCRE syntax. On which you could do
grep -oP '(w*)def[.](w*)'
The -P
flag turns on the PCRE regex mode in GNU grep
and the -o
flag returns the whole word matched the regex defined. The regex is translated as match zero or more number of alphanumeric characters followed by def
and a literal .
( enclosed in a bracket expression ) and followed by zero or more number of alphanumeric characters.
Using POSIX character classes for alphanumeric characters would be doing below. But remember the flag -o
is still a GNU extension
grep -o '([[:alnum:]]*)def[.]([[:alnum:]]*)'
Instead of[.]
, better use.
for a literal dot
– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
1
The-E
flag forgrep
, at least on GNUgrep
, also supportsw
.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
1
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone worddef
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the.
in the word, I assumed in the positive casesdef
is always present with the.
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
1
@Philippos: Why do you say.
is better than[.]
?
– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
|
show 4 more comments
With the attempt you have, you can't match the whole word to be returned. The -o
flag of grep
only returns the matched regex portion defined. Also w
is not a POSIX defined extension for grep
and might be available only in the GNU versions which support the PCRE syntax. On which you could do
grep -oP '(w*)def[.](w*)'
The -P
flag turns on the PCRE regex mode in GNU grep
and the -o
flag returns the whole word matched the regex defined. The regex is translated as match zero or more number of alphanumeric characters followed by def
and a literal .
( enclosed in a bracket expression ) and followed by zero or more number of alphanumeric characters.
Using POSIX character classes for alphanumeric characters would be doing below. But remember the flag -o
is still a GNU extension
grep -o '([[:alnum:]]*)def[.]([[:alnum:]]*)'
Instead of[.]
, better use.
for a literal dot
– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
1
The-E
flag forgrep
, at least on GNUgrep
, also supportsw
.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
1
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone worddef
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the.
in the word, I assumed in the positive casesdef
is always present with the.
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
1
@Philippos: Why do you say.
is better than[.]
?
– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
|
show 4 more comments
With the attempt you have, you can't match the whole word to be returned. The -o
flag of grep
only returns the matched regex portion defined. Also w
is not a POSIX defined extension for grep
and might be available only in the GNU versions which support the PCRE syntax. On which you could do
grep -oP '(w*)def[.](w*)'
The -P
flag turns on the PCRE regex mode in GNU grep
and the -o
flag returns the whole word matched the regex defined. The regex is translated as match zero or more number of alphanumeric characters followed by def
and a literal .
( enclosed in a bracket expression ) and followed by zero or more number of alphanumeric characters.
Using POSIX character classes for alphanumeric characters would be doing below. But remember the flag -o
is still a GNU extension
grep -o '([[:alnum:]]*)def[.]([[:alnum:]]*)'
With the attempt you have, you can't match the whole word to be returned. The -o
flag of grep
only returns the matched regex portion defined. Also w
is not a POSIX defined extension for grep
and might be available only in the GNU versions which support the PCRE syntax. On which you could do
grep -oP '(w*)def[.](w*)'
The -P
flag turns on the PCRE regex mode in GNU grep
and the -o
flag returns the whole word matched the regex defined. The regex is translated as match zero or more number of alphanumeric characters followed by def
and a literal .
( enclosed in a bracket expression ) and followed by zero or more number of alphanumeric characters.
Using POSIX character classes for alphanumeric characters would be doing below. But remember the flag -o
is still a GNU extension
grep -o '([[:alnum:]]*)def[.]([[:alnum:]]*)'
edited May 29 at 5:02
answered May 29 at 4:55
InianInian
6,2901734
6,2901734
Instead of[.]
, better use.
for a literal dot
– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
1
The-E
flag forgrep
, at least on GNUgrep
, also supportsw
.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
1
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone worddef
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the.
in the word, I assumed in the positive casesdef
is always present with the.
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
1
@Philippos: Why do you say.
is better than[.]
?
– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
|
show 4 more comments
Instead of[.]
, better use.
for a literal dot
– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
1
The-E
flag forgrep
, at least on GNUgrep
, also supportsw
.
– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
1
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone worddef
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.
– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the.
in the word, I assumed in the positive casesdef
is always present with the.
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
1
@Philippos: Why do you say.
is better than[.]
?
– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
Instead of
[.]
, better use .
for a literal dot– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
Instead of
[.]
, better use .
for a literal dot– Philippos
May 29 at 8:10
1
1
The
-E
flag for grep
, at least on GNU grep
, also supports w
.– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
The
-E
flag for grep
, at least on GNU grep
, also supports w
.– terdon♦
May 29 at 8:25
1
1
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone word
def
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
The only thing with this is that it requires the dot to be there, so it would not match the lone word
def
. However, I'm uncertain this is an issue for the questioner.– Kusalananda♦
May 29 at 9:10
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the
.
in the word, I assumed in the positive cases def
is always present with the .
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
@Kusalananda: Agreed, OP says including the
.
in the word, I assumed in the positive cases def
is always present with the .
– Inian
May 29 at 9:13
1
1
@Philippos: Why do you say
.
is better than [.]
?– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
@Philippos: Why do you say
.
is better than [.]
?– Scott
May 29 at 17:58
|
show 4 more comments
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f521663%2fgrep-complete-name-including-dot-in-the-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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