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

[Pedro Giffuni]

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
>