On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 01:51:27AM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>
> I don't know about you, but I'd rather use an effective unportable
> tool than an ineffective portable one.
>
I'd rather use an effective portable one, and pretending that doesn't
exist doesn't help anything.
On 4 August 2012 01:37, Uriel wrote:
> Yea, because obviously what we needed is even more unportable GNU extensions.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather use an effective unportable
tool than an ineffective portable one.
cls
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Nick wrote:
> Quoth Connor Lane Smith:
>> % head -n -10
Yea, because obviously what we needed is even more unportable GNU extensions.
If this is your only justification for head, it is really sad.
> Cool, I didn't know that syntax. Useful. Out of curiousity, i
On 4 August 2012 01:01, Strake wrote:
> Not sbase head.
Maybe someone should file a bug. :p
By the way, POSIX tail accepts both positive and negative '-n'
arguments, so it would make sense if head did too. One might expect
'-c' as well. Unfortunately standards seldom make much sense.
cls
On 03/08/2012, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> % head -n -10
Not sbase head.
$ seq 0 7 | head -n -2
$
On 3 August 2012 22:15, Nick wrote:
> Cool, I didn't know that syntax. Useful. Out of curiousity, is it
> codified in any standard?
Sadly not. But then, most things aren't.
cls
Quoth Connor Lane Smith:
> % head -n -10
Cool, I didn't know that syntax. Useful. Out of curiousity, is it
codified in any standard?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 07:57:38PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 3 August 2012 19:02, Uriel wrote:
> > head(1) is utterly and completely idiotic. sed 11q is superior in
> > every possible way.
>
> % head -n -10
>
> % sed -e :a -e '$d;N;2,10ba' -e 'P;D'
>
> No thanks.
>
> cls
>
$ head
On 3 August 2012 19:02, Uriel wrote:
> head(1) is utterly and completely idiotic. sed 11q is superior in
> every possible way.
% head -n -10
% sed -e :a -e '$d;N;2,10ba' -e 'P;D'
No thanks.
cls
On 3 August 2012 14:02, Uriel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>>
>>> I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
>>> for. It seems crazy not to use an existing tool that impl
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>
>> I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
>> for. It seems crazy not to use an existing tool that implements all
>> the functionality, that can be
Kill it with fire.
On Aug 2, 2012 1:42 PM, "Martin Kopta" wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 04:34 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
>>> for. It seems crazy not to use a
On 08/02/2012 04:34 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
for. It seems crazy not to use an existing tool that implements all
the functionality, that can be nicely bundled in
On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>
> I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
> for. It seems crazy not to use an existing tool that implements all
> the functionality, that can be nicely bundled in a a script.
>
To be honest, I feel th
On 2 August 2012 07:31, Martin Kopta wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 01:20 PM, hiro wrote:
>>
>> why not a C-to-awk compiler?
>
>
> Written in Perl. NOW we are finally getting somewhere.
>
>
I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
for. It seems crazy not to use an existing too
On 08/02/2012 01:20 PM, hiro wrote:
why not a C-to-awk compiler?
Written in Perl. NOW we are finally getting somewhere.
why not a C-to-awk compiler?
On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:49:05 -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
>
> I wanted to know how you use awk to get the same output as
> "cut -d' ' -f3-"
>
This can be done on multiple ways in awk, here is one example (a bit
extreme):
awk '{$1=$2=""; $0=substr($0, 3)}1'
--
Paul Onyschuk
On 00:12 Thu 02 Aug, sjferr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 19:52 Wed 01 Aug, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>>>On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:28:57PM -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
What is your awk to print fields three and four with this input:
'foo bar baz quz'
>>>
>>>Depends on what
> On 19:52 Wed 01 Aug, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>>On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:28:57PM -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
>>>
>>> What is your awk to print fields three and four with this input:
>>>
>>> 'foo bar baz quz'
>>>
>>
>>Depends on what output format I want. Get to the point instead of
>>try
On 19:52 Wed 01 Aug, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:28:57PM -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
>>
>> What is your awk to print fields three and four with this input:
>>
>> 'foo bar baz quz'
>>
>
>Depends on what output format I want. Get to the point instead of
>trying to set
On 01/08/2012, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> In fact, I'm fairly
> certain I could implement cut in sed.
with shell script wrapper?
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:33:14PM -0400, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> > The question is: since cut can be implemented IN awk, why should it get
> > a separate C binary? Anyone nattering about performance in a shell
> > script is barking up the wrong
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> The question is: since cut can be implemented IN awk, why should it get
> a separate C binary? Anyone nattering about performance in a shell
> script is barking up the wrong tree.
Should sed be excluded? What can you do with sed that you can'
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:28:57PM -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
>
> What is your awk to print fields three and four with this input:
>
> 'foo bar baz quz'
>
Depends on what output format I want. Get to the point instead of
trying to set me up for failure; I don't have time for this shit
On 19:21 Wed 01 Aug, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:13:57PM -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
>>
>> Give this[0] a read and see what you think.
>>
>> [0] http://awk.freeshell.org/RangeOfFields
>>
>
>I think their suggestions are based on
> 1) deciding to use a shitty version of aw
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 07:13:57PM -0400, Steven Blatchford wrote:
>
> Give this[0] a read and see what you think.
>
> [0] http://awk.freeshell.org/RangeOfFields
>
I think their suggestions are based on
1) deciding to use a shitty version of awk, and
2) the idea that you should give a shit i
On 18:54 Wed 01 Aug, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:02:52PM +0100, Nick wrote:
>>
>> Bah. There's a balance to be struck. Scripts which aren't awful
>> should be supported. The issue is whether using cut constitutes
>> 'awful'. I think it does not. There are legitimate cases whe
because suckless lol
On 8/2/12, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:02:52PM +0100, Nick wrote:
>>
>> Bah. There's a balance to be struck. Scripts which aren't awful
>> should be supported. The issue is whether using cut constitutes
>> 'awful'. I think it does not. There are legitimat
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 11:02:52PM +0100, Nick wrote:
>
> Bah. There's a balance to be struck. Scripts which aren't awful
> should be supported. The issue is whether using cut constitutes
> 'awful'. I think it does not. There are legitimate cases where it's
> simpler and clearer than awk/sed.
>
Quoth Uriel:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Ryan Mullen wrote:
> >
> > Exclusion of cut would make sbase not viable when existing scripts
> > need to be supported.
>
> Exclusion of bash would make sbase not viable when existing scripts
> need to be supported.
>
> What a lame argument.
Bah. T
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Martin Kopta wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 03:09 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:58:00AM -0400, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would you use awk or Perl when you have the best programming language
>>> available: Ruby?
>>> On Aug 1, 2012 8:55 AM,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Ryan Mullen wrote:
>
> Exclusion of cut would make sbase not viable when existing scripts
> need to be supported.
Exclusion of bash would make sbase not viable when existing scripts
need to be supported.
What a lame argument.
Uriel
sometimes I only respond to the suckless becaus I want to annoy you
with my top-posts, although I have nothing to say whatsoever.
On 8/1/12, Ryan Mullen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, pancake wrote:
>> The only thing i miss in cut is mutichar word split. Which is properly
>> h
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM, pancake wrote:
> The only thing i miss in cut is mutichar word split. Which is properly
> handled by awk. For example:
>
> If a line is splitted by multiple spaces or a mix of tabs and spaces it is
> not handled right by cut. But awk does the job.
This is s
The only thing i miss in cut is mutichar word split. Which is properly handled
by awk. For example:
If a line is splitted by multiple spaces or a mix of tabs and spaces it is not
handled right by cut. But awk does the job.
That's quite anoying because of the crappy output of many tools that abu
Quoth Ryan Mullen:
> Exclusion of cut would make sbase not viable when existing scripts
> need to be supported.
Exactly. I only use awk to do these kind of jobs nowadays, but cut
is in use a lot of places, so it makes sense to use it. And it can
be easier for certain kinds of jobs (e.g. printing
HI,
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Strake wrote:
> I rewrote cut cleaner, but am not sure whether I ought to bother to
> send it, if ye would rather keep sbase sans cut.
IMO cut is a good tool to include. I use cut's functionality much more
than awk's; it's a simpler tool that does a basic thin
I rewrote cut cleaner, but am not sure whether I ought to bother to
send it, if ye would rather keep sbase sans cut.
On 01/08/2012, Martin Kopta wrote:
>> Also, I'm really curious why people use cut when awk exists.
>
> $ du -b /usr/bin/cut /usr/bin/gawk /opt/plan9/bin/awk
> 38600 /usr/bin/cut
> 400212 /usr/bin/gawk
> 105700 /opt/plan9/bin/awk
>
> Speed and simplicity I guess?
>
> Why would I use awk of whic
On 08/01/2012 03:09 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:58:00AM -0400, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
Why would you use awk or Perl when you have the best programming language
available: Ruby?
On Aug 1, 2012 8:55 AM, "Martin Kopta" wrote:
On 08/01/2012 02:36 PM, Uriel wrote:
Use awk.
Greetings.
On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:10:19 +0200 Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> Why would you use awk or Perl when you have the best programming language
> available: Ruby?
> On Aug 1, 2012 8:55 AM, "Martin Kopta" wrote:
>
> > On 08/01/2012 02:36 PM, Uriel wrote:
> >
> >> Use awk.
> >>
> >
> > Use Perl.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:58:00AM -0400, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> Why would you use awk or Perl when you have the best programming language
> available: Ruby?
> On Aug 1, 2012 8:55 AM, "Martin Kopta" wrote:
>
> > On 08/01/2012 02:36 PM, Uriel wrote:
> >
> >> Use awk.
> >>
> >
> > Use Perl.
> >
>
Why would you use awk or Perl when you have the best programming language
available: Ruby?
On Aug 1, 2012 8:55 AM, "Martin Kopta" wrote:
> On 08/01/2012 02:36 PM, Uriel wrote:
>
>> Use awk.
>>
>
> Use Perl.
>
>
>
On 08/01/2012 02:36 PM, Uriel wrote:
Use awk.
Use Perl.
Use awk.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Strake wrote:
> Will now need libutf.
>
> diff -r 8cf300476909 Makefile
> --- a/Makefile Sat Jun 09 18:53:39 2012 +0100
> +++ b/Makefile Tue Jul 31 23:06:28 2012 -0500
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> cksum.c\
> cmp.c \
> cp.c
Will now need libutf.
diff -r 8cf300476909 Makefile
--- a/Makefile Sat Jun 09 18:53:39 2012 +0100
+++ b/Makefile Tue Jul 31 23:06:28 2012 -0500
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
cksum.c\
cmp.c \
cp.c \
+ cut.c \
date.c \
dirname.c \
47 matches
Mail list logo
