On 20/01/11 10:06, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
>>>> 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
>
Hey,
maintaining 2 basefile packages is error prone and leads to having to
maintain 2 packages. rather than 1 which is already maintained.
your mails seem a bit like "drive-by-patching" and the question is, if
you, in 1, 6, 12 months, still forward port all the changes and fixes
done in base-files to base-files-mini ?!
also basefile-mini does exactly the same as basefiles, just in a style
you personally favour. normally a -mini means, that less features are
included (see hostapd and hostapd-mini). so calling in
basefile-shell_only would be more applicable, although the purpose of
such a package is still not clear to me apart from satisfying personal
style preferences.
blogic
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
