Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 09:22:20 -0800 From: Devin Teske <devin@shxd.cx> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@komquats.com> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, "rgrimes@freebsd.org" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, "cem@freebsd.org" <cem@freebsd.org>, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@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: <F8BD44E8-5055-462C-806D-2F6147B87DB2@shxd.cx> In-Reply-To: <20171205162926.9F16C1DD@spqr.komquats.com> References: <20171205162926.9F16C1DD@spqr.komquats.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@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.Schubert@cschubert.com> or <cy@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: rgrimes@freebsd.org; cem@freebsd.org; Eitan Adler; src-committers; 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 > > > > 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 >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F8BD44E8-5055-462C-806D-2F6147B87DB2>