svn commit: r326554 - in head: . usr.bin/spongeusr.bin/sponge/tests usr.bin/tee

[Cy Schubert]

What side effects? Can you give one or two examples, please?

---
Sent using a tiny phone keyboard.
Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
This old phone only supports top post. Apologies.

Cy Schubert
<Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com> or <cy at freebsd.org>
The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
---

-----Original Message-----
From: Pedro Giffuni
Sent: 05/12/2017 08:40
To: Cy Schubert; Devin Teske; Hans Petter Selasky
Cc: rgrimes at freebsd.org; cem at freebsd.org; Eitan Adler; src-committers; svn-src-all at freebsd.org; svn-src-head at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r326554 - in head: . usr.bin/spongeusr.bin/sponge/tests usr.bin/tee




On 05/12/2017 11:29, Cy Schubert wrote:




Why not update sed to create the backup file only if the suffix is given to -i, like gnu sed does.



 No, no .. there have been several failed attempts at that that cause nasty side effects.
 It is also a rather non-standardish thing to do.

 Pedro.




---
Sent using a tiny phone keyboard.
 Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
 This old phone only supports top post. Apologies.

 Cy Schubert
<Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com> or <cy at 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 at freebsd.org; cem at freebsd.org; Eitan Adler; src-committers; svn-src-all at freebsd.org; svn-src-head at 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 at 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