Our sed already creates backup files "optionally" just as gsed does. Only the
syntax is different. No need to sponge sed, just sed -i '' (whereas gsed is -i
without the argument).
---
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.
---
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Teske
Sent: 05/12/2017 09:23
To: Cy Schubert
Cc: Hans Petter Selasky; 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 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"
