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

[Devin Teske]

> On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at 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 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
>