Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:33:21 -0800 From: Devin Teske <devin@shxd.cx> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: 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: <AE022237-A2D5-49E1-A6DA-DD65A460B266@shxd.cx> In-Reply-To: <22918eec-4c98-01e4-4c63-e145fbc6eab9@selasky.org> References: <201712051258.vB5CwjQN051356@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <22918eec-4c98-01e4-4c63-e145fbc6eab9@selasky.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> 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
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AE022237-A2D5-49E1-A6DA-DD65A460B266>