On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > I hesitate to make any suggestion here, as I think we may have passed > > a point of useful cost/benefit in sinking more time into this script. > > But...is switching to awk or perl an option? Our test suite already > > depends on having a vanilla perl, so I don't think it would be a new > > dependency. And it would give you actual data structures. > > It would, and I did consider it, however, I was very concerned about > startup cost (launch time) with heavyweight perl considering that it > would have to be run for _every_ test. With 13000+ tests, that cost > was a very real concern, especially for Windows users, but even for > MacOS users (such as myself, for which the full test suite already > takes probably close to 30 minutes to run, even on a ram drive). So, I > wanted something very lightweight (and deliberately used that word in > the commit message), and 'sed' seemed the lightest-weight of the > bunch. Both perl and sed seem about the same on my system (sometimes one is faster than the other, and sometimes vice versa). However, I expect for Windows the problem is not how big the child executable is, but running a child process at all. I might be wrong, though. > 'awk' might be about as lightweight as 'sed', and it may even be > possible to coerce it into handling the task (since the linter's job > is primarily just a bunch of regex matching with very little > "manipulating"). v1 of the linter was somewhat simpler and didn't deal > with these more complex cases, such as nested here-docs. v1 also did > rather more "manipulating" of the script since the result was meant to > be run by the shell. When it came time to implement v2, which detects > broken &&-chains itself by textual inspection, most of the > functionality (coming from v1) was already implemented in 'sed', so > 'awk' never really came up as a candidate since rewriting the script > from scratch in 'awk' didn't seem like a good idea. (And, at the time > v2 was started, I didn't know that these more complex cases would > arise.) So, 'awk' might be a viable alternative, and perhaps I'll take > a stab at it for fun at some point (or not), but I don't think there's > a pressing need right now. Yeah, I agree with that. -Peff
