Hi Oskari,
On 4/15/23 09:21, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 13:26:59 +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> Hi Oskari,
>>
>> On 4/14/23 05:19, Oskari Pirhonen wrote:
>>> Remove leading whitespace and collapse multi-line declarations into a
>>> single line using (g)awk.
>>
>> I can't reak awk(1) :(
>>
>
> Awww man, but I even left the optional semicolons in...
:-)
>
>> But I like the idea. I implemented the same using sed(1) after your
>> suggestion. Does the below patch look good to you?
>>
>
> I actually had an earlier version with sed(1), but it used
> looping/branching to handle the multi-line bits, so I figured it was a
> bit ugly and didn't send it. I didn't think to try `-z`.
>
> It seems to do the same thing, so LGTM.
Good.
>
>> Cheers,
>> Alex
>>
>> P.S.: I forgot about writing a man page. I'll start now.
>>
>
> I was about to say "and license file and appropriate blurb" but then I
> saw your commit. I've got some suggestions for the man page, so I'll
> send some patches sometime soon.
Sure, please!
>
> - Oskari
>
>
> Since you said you can't read awk, then just to satisfy your curiosity,
Thanks!
> here's what was going on:
>
> BEGIN {
> RS = ";\n"
> ORS = RS
> }
>
> This block is run at the start before any records are processed.
>
> The default Record Separator is "\n", but here we set it to ";\n". In
> (g)awk, a value of `RS` that is >1 char is actually a regex, but we only
> need to match a literal string. The Output Record Separator is by
> default also "\n".
>
> {
> gsub(/\n/, " ")
> sub(/^ +/, "")
> gsub(/ +/, " ")
> print
> }
>
> This block is run on all records, since it doesn't have any patterns for
> contitional execution attached to it.
>
> `gsub()` does an in-place global regex replace on a string, similar to
> the `s/regex/replace/g` you're familiar with. It takes an optional third
> arg, but if it's left out then it has an implicit `$0` which means the
> entire current record. `sub()` is like `gsub()`, but only does the first
> match, similar to `s/regex/replace/`.
>
> `print`, without any args, prints the current record followed by `ORS`.
> This was set earlier because the `RS` is consumed from the input as it
> is being processed record by record, but we want to keep the output
> looking intact.
>
> Hopefully not so bad after all.
Meh, I'll need some time to get used to it, I guess :)
> Awk is pretty nice IMO (and gawk in
> particular), and I would recommend checking it out if you find yourself
> borded one day :)
So far, I've almost always found one way or another with more specific
commands. The only case I find awk(1) interesting is for processing
columns; it's quite good at that (e.g., for printing column sum totals).
The other alternative I can think of is pee(1), and process each column
separately, which might be more readable (for me). But I might give it
a try some day. :)
For now, awk(1) is only for `awk '{print $3}'` to me.
Cheers,
Alex
--
<http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
