It's for people that don't know how to use FIFOs/process substitution
properly ;-)
should suffice:
cat file | tee (sort -u sorted) (sort -R unsorted)
That's a bashism, not POSIX. Not much better than using pee
--
Fernando Carmona Varo
On 28 June 2013 21:51, Fernando C.V. ferk...@gmail.com wrote:
It's for people that don't know how to use FIFOs/process substitution
properly ;-)
should suffice:
cat file | tee (sort -u sorted) (sort -R unsorted)
That's a bashism, not POSIX. Not much better than using pee
--
Fernando
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Strake strake...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/06/2013, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
pee
And a cloth to clean up the mess...
No, that's what sponge is for.
Still. What's pee good for? A quick google disappointed my
expectations in that matter.
On 27 June 2013 14:33, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
Still. What's pee good for? A quick google disappointed my
expectations in that matter.
It's for people that don't know how to use FIFOs/process substitution
properly ;-)
On 27 June 2013 02:43, Chris Down ch...@regentmarkets.com wrote:
On 27 June 2013 14:33, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
Still. What's pee good for? A quick google disappointed my
expectations in that matter.
It's for people that don't know how to use FIFOs/process substitution
dash has a broken builtin echo command and they are not interested in
fix it. I think busybox ash fixed the problem.
dash echo '\tshit'
shit
ash echo '\tshit'
\tshit
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Christian Neukirchen
chneukirc...@gmail.com wrote:
Markus Teich markus.te...@stusta.mhn.de
pmarin pacog...@gmail.com writes:
dash has a broken builtin echo command and they are not interested in
fix it. I think busybox ash fixed the problem.
dash echo '\tshit'
shit
ash echo '\tshit'
\tshit
That is bad indeed. Know any other problems?
--
Christian Neukirchen
Quoth pmarin:
dash has a broken builtin echo command and they are not interested in
fix it. I think busybox ash fixed the problem.
Is it really broken? I got the impression from [0] that echo was so
badly specified that one shouldn't trust it to do much at all,
though I confess I haven't read
Chris Down dixit:
try mksh.
FWIW, mksh has three different “echo”; if invoked as mksh, it uses
a BSD echo by default which does interpret backslashes, but if one
uses set -o posix (or invokes it as sh or -sh and it is compiled
with -DMKSH_BINSHPOSIX (CVS HEAD)) it has an echo that only honours
Chris Down ch...@regentmarkets.com writes:
On 25 June 2013 18:01, Christian Neukirchen chneukirc...@gmail.com wrote:
pmarin pacog...@gmail.com writes:
dash has a broken builtin echo command and they are not interested in
fix it. I think busybox ash fixed the problem.
dash echo '\tshit'
What is your opinion on a shell for sbase?
The shell is a topic around which there is far too much religion.
Sbase should not include a shell.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Galos, David
galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
What is your opinion on a shell for sbase?
The shell is a topic around which there is far too much religion.
Sbase should not include a shell.
:) i like this answer
why not rc?
On 25 June 2013 10:10, Carlos Torres vlaadbr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Galos, David
galos...@students.rowan.edu wrote:
What is your opinion on a shell for sbase?
The shell is a topic around which there is far too much religion.
Sbase should not include
I understood sbase to have a loose correspondence to coreutils. Is
this the case? Coreutils does not have a shell, or am I wrong about
that?
Jesse
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Calvin Morrison
mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
why not rc?
On 25 June 2013 10:10, Carlos Torres
On 25 June 2013 22:42, Jesse Ogle jesse.p.o...@gmail.com wrote:
I understood sbase to have a loose correspondence to coreutils. Is
this the case? Coreutils does not have a shell, or am I wrong about
that?
GNU coreutils has no shell, it is packaged separately (as GNU bash).
On 25 June 2013 10:45, Chris Down ch...@chrisdown.name wrote:
On 25 June 2013 22:42, Jesse Ogle jesse.p.o...@gmail.com wrote:
I understood sbase to have a loose correspondence to coreutils. Is
this the case? Coreutils does not have a shell, or am I wrong about
that?
GNU coreutils has no
Am 2013-06-25 16:42, schrieb Jesse Ogle:
I understood sbase to have a loose correspondence to coreutils. Is
this the case? Coreutils does not have a shell, or am I wrong about
that?
I don't think „Everyone is doing it this way“ is a valid argument in
any discussion.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at
my votes are for at a minimum are for:
sponge
tee
pee
On 25 June 2013 10:54, Daniel Bryan danbr...@gmail.com wrote:
first of all, some things in moreutils would be awesome
Especially if they weren't written in Perl.
busybox ash.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
my votes are for at a minimum are for:
sponge
tee
pee
And a cloth to clean up the mess...
On 25/06/2013, Martti Kühne mysat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com
wrote:
my votes are for at a minimum are for:
sponge
tee
pee
And a cloth to clean up the mess...
No, that's what sponge is for.
21 matches
Mail list logo
