> On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@komquats.com> wrote: > > Why not update sed to create the backup file only if the suffix is given to > -i, like gnu sed does. >
I suspect that would break countless scripts that test uname to determine how to use the -i flag of sed. -- Devin > --- > Sent using a tiny phone keyboard. > Apologies for any typos and autocorrect. > This old phone only supports top post. Apologies. > > Cy Schubert > <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> or <c...@freebsd.org> > The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. > --- > From: Devin Teske > Sent: 05/12/2017 07:35 > To: Hans Petter Selasky > Cc: rgri...@freebsd.org; c...@freebsd.org; Eitan Adler; src-committers; > svn-src-...@freebsd.org; svn-src-head@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: svn commit: r326554 - in head: . usr.bin/sponge > usr.bin/sponge/tests usr.bin/tee > > > > On Dec 5, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <h...@selasky.org> wrote: > > > >> On 12/05/17 13:58, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >> Further more, why does freebsd need this in base? > > > > Hi, > > > > I think this is useful. It could replace the "-i " (intermediate) option > > for "sed" for example. It avoids creating temporary files when filtering > > files, right? > > > > --HPS > > > > Wth is wrong with: > > data=$( sed -e '...' somefile ) && > echo "$data" > somefile > > or > > set -e > data=... > echo "$data" > ... > > or > > exec 3<<EOF > $( ... ) > EOF > cat > ... <&3 > > or > > (I digress) > > Infinite variations, but the gist is that sponge looks to be trying to help > sh(1)/similar when help is unneeded. > > Why buffer data into memory via fork-exec-pipe to sponge when you can buffer > to native namespace without pipe to sponge? > > Am I missing something? Why do we need sponge(1)? > -- > Devin > _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
