> print_in_columns() {
> - cols=$(expr $ncols / 24)
> - cat | tr ' ' '\n' | sort | pr -r "-$cols" -w $ncols -t
> + set -- $(cat | tr ' ' '\n' | sort)
> + col_width=24
> + cols=$(($ncols / $col_width))
> + rows=$(($(($# + $cols - 1)) / $cols))
> + cols_seq=$(seq $cols)
> + rows_seq=$(seq $rows)
> + for row in $rows_seq; do
> + index=$row
> + line=""
> + fmt=""
> + for col in $cols_seq; do
> + if [ $index -le $# ]; then
> + eval line='"$line "${'$index'}'
> + fmt="$fmt%-${col_width}s"
> + fi
> + index=$(($index + $rows))
> + done
> + printf "$fmt\n" $line
> + done | sed 's/ *$//'
> }
Looks good.
Hopefully last batch of comments, nothing critical:
- Make sure the new code behaves well when $ncols < 24. It's an unlikely case
but I think v3 and v4 don't print anything if that happens.
- You don't need to "build" `$fmt`, because printf reuses the format string
if there are more values than placeholders. Just use one fixed "%-24s".
- The `cat |` in `cat | tr ' ' '\n' | sort` is not required. It just adds
a process without giving any value.
- When `$(<some-commands>)` is unquoted and not part of an assignment then it's
also subject to glob expansion. E.g. try `printf "A B *" | print_in_columns`
with your code compared to the original version with `pr`. For our case it's
not an issue because the values do not expand (and other parts in configure
will break if they did expand), but in general the correct (and slower) way
to handle it is with `read`, so it's worth adding a comment that there are
some constraints with the values.
- `$rows_seq` is not required (but also doesn't hurt). It's evaluated only once
anyway - only when the outer loop starts, unlike `$cols_seq` which is used
with a new `for` on each row. But it doesn't have a performance impact and
it's a good practice in general where possible, so it's fine to keep it.
- To measure the runtime of a program you can do `time program <arguments>`.
To measure the runtime of sections in a script you can use `time.sh` which I
used with `configure` in the past - https://github.com/avih/time.sh .
> To check a name with human eye, after we get the nearby area for the check:
> If row by row, we have to turn our eyes from left to right, from up to down,
> and then again left to right, up to down, maybe again and again. And there is
> still
> possibility that we missed the check.
>
> If column by column, we just turn from up to down (the same column) and
> can easily check if the name is there or not.
Yeah, no disagreement there. Just wondered if it was considered. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
