> >> it is always a bad idea to mix up different languages
> >> in one environment.
>
> I don't accept this is a valid starting point. I agree that it is
> useful to limit the number of tools/languages you use, but you
> should
> still try and use the right tool/language for the right job.
your are right. the question is:
original:
sed -ne 's![^0-9].*$!!p' /proc/uptime
patch:
cut -d'.' -f1 /proc/uptime
patch-2:
uptime_in_seconds()
{
cut -d'.' -f1 /proc/uptime
}
what is the better tool?
what is better readable?
must we really sanitize /proc/uptime for numbers?
> Indeed: /bin/sh was designed around the idea that running an
> external
> command like `sed' is basically equivalent to a function call to
yes, but in practise it is a good idea to use internal
functions/commands (speed, memory).
> a library function. That's why /bin/sh is very limited in the
> text-handling functionality it provides directly. So by and
/bin/sh is more limited than sed, but still strong.
> `sed' is part of the /bin/sh language (I've managed to survive 20
> years
> of unix without ever really learning awk, so I don't feel quite as
> strongly about awk as about sed).
i like this sentence 8-)
I will stop sending patches like this, because i see that
many people have stomachache with these, but i propose
for menuconfig a selection like this:
[ ] base-files standard
[ ] base-files mini (no sed/awk, experimental)
bye, Bastian
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
