On Thursday 19 July 2012 12:54:37 Tom Rini wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 09:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 July 2012 11:38:39 Tom Rini wrote:
> >> On 07/19/2012 08:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 19 July 2012 11:08:10 Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>> On 07/18/2012 08:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday 18 July 2012 19:45:52 Allen Martin wrote:
> >>>>>> +MAJOR=$($gas --version | head -1 | awk '{print $NF}' |
> >>>>>> cut -d . -f 1) +MINOR=$($gas --version | head -1 | awk
> >>>>>> '{print $NF}' | cut -d . -f 2) + +printf "%02d%02d\\n"
> >>>>>> $MAJOR $MINOR
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can be replaced with a single awk script:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> $gas --version | awk '{ gsub(/[.]/, " ", $NF) $0 = $NF
> >>>>> printf "%02d%02d\n", $1, $2 exit }'
> >>>>
> >>>> That looks much longer and we call this once so a few execs
> >>>> is noise.
> >>>
> >>> here's a shorter version: $gas --version | awk '{ gsub(/[.]/, "
> >>> ", $NF); $0 = $NF; printf "%02d%02d\n", $1, $2; exit }'
> >>
> >> And still over 80 chars before we assign it to a variable. I
> >> could get it to 77 chars with all whitespace removed.
> >
> > which is why i unrolled it to make it readable. i don't know what
> > metrics you're using here, but i don't think the awk version is
> > "longer" by really any of them.
>
> The metric of 'wc -c' and "what fits in a single line, unwrapped on an
> 80x24 terminal." awk is great and awesome, don't get me wrong, but
> it's not doing the job as compactly as the original.obviously i disagree. i find the awk version "better" in just about every way. maybe someone else will jump in with their favorite bike. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
