Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:06:21 -0800 From: Devin Teske <devin@shxd.cx> To: Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, rgrimes@freebsd.org, cem@freebsd.org, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r326554 - in head: . usr.bin/sponge usr.bin/sponge/tests usr.bin/tee Message-ID: <16BDAEF5-87B3-482F-B5AB-372E128D0514@shxd.cx> In-Reply-To: <CADdTf%2BhLaLUb=XF9jAqPOx7TgFXrWyf3PJywP-KsaDrvu3xs4w@mail.gmail.com> References: <201712051258.vB5CwjQN051356@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <22918eec-4c98-01e4-4c63-e145fbc6eab9@selasky.org> <AE022237-A2D5-49E1-A6DA-DD65A460B266@shxd.cx> <CADdTf%2Bh=Tqb635r7e8U8HdZQtwSdNtzcoC4hXuhRk7ir=TXviw@mail.gmail.com> <CADdTf%2BiWp149DifcSA7K-6DzzOzyHpbsGDC2FNvnFGdoe0Yrfg@mail.gmail.com> <CADdTf%2BhLaLUb=XF9jAqPOx7TgFXrWyf3PJywP-KsaDrvu3xs4w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Dec 5, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Matt Joras <matt.joras@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 5, 2017 7:35 AM, "Devin Teske" <devin@shxd.cx> wrote: > > > On Dec 5, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@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 > > I do believe you are sort of missing the point. It is a utility that is explicitly useful in shell pipelines, so when you want to do things as one-liners. I like the utility and use the one from ports and my own version in various things here and there. It is a common utility installed in Linux distros and the top answer on Google for questions such as "redirect shell output to same file". I think the outrage about adding a tiny utility that's common elsewhere is a bit silly. > > As for the implementation, I have my own version of sponge (hobby program written in rust so not base-worthy), and it uses explicit temporary files for larger outputs. > > Matt The problems I have are: 1. Should be in ports Not pre-installed on Linux, why should we have it in base? If in base, people will target it thinking it solves a need that can't otherwise be solved and thus end up creating a script that is less portable because it is encumbered with dependencies specific to our base. 2. Teaches bad practice sed ... somefile | sponge somefile Ignores if there is a sed error and indiscriminately zeroes somefile. 3. Solution in search of a problem -- Devin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16BDAEF5-87B3-482F-B5AB-372E128D0514>