| 1 |
On 12/16/19 12:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2019-12-15 at 13:29 -0800, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 12/13/19 2:12 PM, Michael 'veremitz' Everitt wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 13/12/19 20:36, Michał Górny wrote [excerpted]: |
| 5 |
>>>> Is this really an argument for or *against* it? Developers are entirely |
| 6 |
>>>> capable of keeping seds that do nothing for years, as well as patches |
| 7 |
>>>> that -- while apparently applying correctly -- are entirely meaningless. |
| 8 |
>>> <snip> |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> I think there is some merit in some kind of feedback when sed's are doing |
| 11 |
>>> nothing, although how feasible it is to generate any useful feedback I |
| 12 |
>>> can't say. I wouldn't say it needs to explicitly fail or make lots of |
| 13 |
>>> noise, just an info message that could prompt some further investigation. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> It's possible to implement a sed wrapper that detects file arguments for |
| 17 |
>> -i/--in-place mode, and compares file content before and after the sed call. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> There are also ways to make sed exit with an error but that won't be as |
| 20 |
>> easy to use as a sed wrapper: |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15965073/return-code-of-sed-for-no-match/15966279 |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Don't forget that there could be valid cases for sed not changing |
| 25 |
> a file. Not to mention corner cases where a working replacement results |
| 26 |
> in no change, e.g.: |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> # yuck! |
| 29 |
> sed -i -e "s^-O2^${CFLAGS}^" ... |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Still, I imagine the number of false positives for a QA warning based on |
| 33 |
this would be relatively low. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Thanks, |
| 36 |
Zac |
Archives