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