On Sunday 05 November 2006 16:42, John O'Hagan wrote:
> On Sunday 05 November 2006 09:03, Ken Irving wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 09:56:12PM -0500, Douglas Tutty wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:27:42PM +0000, michael wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > eg for
> > > >
> > > > junk info 18 Pro
> > > > cessor
> > > >
> > > > I wish to get the field '18'
>
[...]
>
> Here's a version of Douglas' python script that I got to run:
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> #!/usr/bin/python
>
> IN = open('IN')
> instring = IN.read()
>
> onelinestring = instring.replace('\n', ' ')
>
> inlist = onelinestring.split()
>
> oldword = ' '
>
> for newword in inlist:
>
> if newword == 'Processor':
> print oldword
> oldword = newword
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
Or, now that I've seen Ken's contribution:
-------------------------------------------
#!/usr/bin/python
for newword in open('IN').read().replace('\n', '').split():
if newword == 'Processor':
print oldword
oldword = newword
--------------------------------------------
Or in bash:
------------------------------------
#!/bin/bash
for newword in $(sed s/\\n//g < IN); do
[[ $newword == "Processor" ]] && echo $oldword
oldword=$newword
done
-------------------------
Either way, I like Douglas' approach of removing the newlines - or perhaps
these loops are inefficient?
Regards,
John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
