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

[Cy Schubert]

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

---
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: 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