Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
On Monday 23 March 2009 13:01:46 Alec Warner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>> > >>> Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of > >>> "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first > >>> argument? > >> > >> There's a slightly different variation in exheres-0: as well as do* > >> and new*, there's also here*, which you use like this: > >> > >> hereins foo <<'END' > >> stuff > >> END > > > > Why would we need a new command for this? The minus sign denoting > > standard input is fairly common with other utilities. > > > >> It magically barfs, rather than hanging indefinitely, if you forget > >> to give it some input. > > > > I guess the same could be done for "newins -", if you think that it is > > necessary (test for stdin being a terminal?). But I don't really see > > the point of it, since such a mistake would be noticed immediately > > when testing the ebuild. > > No, they aren't 'noticed immediately'. The ebuild hangs and then the > author spends 10 minutes trying to figure out why. If its trivial to > implement..I don't see a downside to such a feature. this "feature" can be found in any number of existing utilities. like sed. any argument along those lines is pretty weak. using "-" as a shortcut name for stdin sounds logical to me considering it's a standard in the *nix world. as for the portage utils checking stdin and reporting an error if it's trying to grab from the terminal, that's cheese someone can implement if they really want it. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Tiziano Müller wrote: >> what would people think of "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) >> accepting "-" as the first argument? > I like it :-) Bug 263565 now. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >>> Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of >>> "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first >>> argument? > >> There's a slightly different variation in exheres-0: as well as do* >> and new*, there's also here*, which you use like this: > >> hereins foo <<'END' >> stuff >> END > > Why would we need a new command for this? The minus sign denoting > standard input is fairly common with other utilities. > >> It magically barfs, rather than hanging indefinitely, if you forget >> to give it some input. > > I guess the same could be done for "newins -", if you think that it is > necessary (test for stdin being a terminal?). But I don't really see > the point of it, since such a mistake would be noticed immediately > when testing the ebuild. No, they aren't 'noticed immediately'. The ebuild hangs and then the author spends 10 minutes trying to figure out why. If its trivial to implement..I don't see a downside to such a feature. > >> The rationale for giving it a new name rather than overloading an >> existing one is that some of the existing do* utilities don't take >> just a single simple filename, so overloading would make the command >> line somewhat convoluted. > > It doesn't make much sense to specify "-" as an argument for "do*", > because the command would not know under which name the file should be > installed. OTOH, all "new*" commands have exactly two arguments, so we > could allow "-" for the first argument. > > Ulrich > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 17:11 +0100, Timothy Redaelli wrote: > On Monday 23 March 2009 09:22:06 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > >newins - baz <<<$'# a short\n# file' > > Why can't you use "newins /dev/stdin foo" that it works out of the box? Nope, /dev/stdin isn't portable. While Linux and Solaris have it, AIX and HP-UX do not provide /dev/stdin. Unsure about Interix and MacOSX. Using '-' sounds familiar for me too. /haubi/
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
On Monday 23 March 2009 09:22:06 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of > "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first > argument? I don't know how many usage cases there are, but the > following are obvious: > >sed 's/quux/quuux/' foo | newins - foo > > It would allow for here documents: > >newins - bar <<-EOF ># configuration file (for example) >EOF > > or even: > >newins - baz <<<$'# a short\n# file' Why can't you use "newins /dev/stdin foo" that it works out of the box? -- Timothy `Drizzt` Redaelli FreeSBIE Developer, Gentoo Developer, GUFI Staff There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of >> "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first >> argument? > There's a slightly different variation in exheres-0: as well as do* > and new*, there's also here*, which you use like this: > hereins foo <<'END' > stuff > END Why would we need a new command for this? The minus sign denoting standard input is fairly common with other utilities. > It magically barfs, rather than hanging indefinitely, if you forget > to give it some input. I guess the same could be done for "newins -", if you think that it is necessary (test for stdin being a terminal?). But I don't really see the point of it, since such a mistake would be noticed immediately when testing the ebuild. > The rationale for giving it a new name rather than overloading an > existing one is that some of the existing do* utilities don't take > just a single simple filename, so overloading would make the command > line somewhat convoluted. It doesn't make much sense to specify "-" as an argument for "do*", because the command would not know under which name the file should be installed. OTOH, all "new*" commands have exactly two arguments, so we could allow "-" for the first argument. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:22:06 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of > "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first > argument? There's a slightly different variation in exheres-0: as well as do* and new*, there's also here*, which you use like this: hereins foo <<'END' stuff END It magically barfs, rather than hanging indefinitely, if you forget to give it some input. The rationale for giving it a new name rather than overloading an existing one is that some of the existing do* utilities don't take just a single simple filename, so overloading would make the command line somewhat convoluted. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of I wouldn't call it banned, rather "useless" since everyone directly uses sed instead. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan
Re: [gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
Am Montag, den 23.03.2009, 09:22 +0100 schrieb Ulrich Mueller: > Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of > "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first > argument? I don't know how many usage cases there are, but the > following are obvious: > >sed 's/quux/quuux/' foo | newins - foo > > It would allow for here documents: > >newins - bar <<-EOF ># configuration file (for example) >EOF > > or even: > >newins - baz <<<$'# a short\n# file' > I like it :-) signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
[gentoo-dev] newins "-" for standard input?
Now that "dosed" is going to be banned, what would people think of "newins" (and the other "new*" commands) accepting "-" as the first argument? I don't know how many usage cases there are, but the following are obvious: sed 's/quux/quuux/' foo | newins - foo It would allow for here documents: newins - bar <<-EOF # configuration file (for example) EOF or even: newins - baz <<<$'# a short\n# file' Ulrich
