> > Regarding the original query, why not just use awk?
Or just use basename with a little xargs added. This seems very
readable and obvious to me.
echo /home/me/foo | xargs -l basename
foo
And then zero terminated strings are already supported.
printf "/home/me/foo\0" | xargs -0 -l basename
When doing the filter trick, you'd end up forking three new processes
each time. Which can cause quite a serious slow down in some scripts.
> You have touched a nerve... :-) From the top of my head:
>
> cat -- sed ':'
> tac -- sed '1!G;h;$!d'
> grep -- sed 'PATTERN/!d'
> head -- sed '10q'
> tail -- sed -e ':a' -e '$q;N;11,$D;ba'
> dirname -- sed 's;[^/]*$;;'
> basename -- sed 's;.*/;;'
> cp OLD NEW -- sed 'w NEW' OLD
>
> One can always just use something else, but most often the something
> else is painful.
When trying to construct a filter are any of those alternatives
really that painful? The basename one in particular seems quite
intuitive to me.
IMHO, yes, they are. Specially if you have to do it a couple times in
different scripts. But not so painful that I will submit a patch for
basename. :-)
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
