Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.awk > #9972

Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing

Show all headers | View raw

On 23.05.2025 10:58, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-05-23, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>> In article <100p11m$3uh3m$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Janis Papanagnou  <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In GNU Awk I was looking for the in-place option (similar to sed -i).
>>> I thought there once was some _simple_ option usable from the command
>>> line. (Or am I misremembering?)
>>>
>>> The manual now suggests to use a GNU Awk "inplace" _Extension_ for that
>>>  gawk -i inplace ...
>>> and
>>>  gawk -i inplace -v inplace::suffix=.bak ...
>>> respectively.
>>>
>>> That's not exactly as simple to use as, say,
>>>  gawk -i ...
>>> and
>>>  gawk -i.bak
>>> so I suppose there's a reason for the added complexity in the handling.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know that reason or remember a rationale? - I don't recall
>>> any discussions about that...
>>
>> I've explained this a few times over the years (in this newsgroup).

It's no disrespect; my memory is just limited.

>>
>> There was never a "-i" option in Gawk that meant "inplace" (and there never
>> will be).
>>
>> The key to understanding this is to understand that (in Gawk), the "i" in
>> "-i" does not stand for "inplace".  It stands for "include".

No doubt. - What I wanted to say is that I thought there was a _simple_
option "like -i" (although, before 'include' times, it could have also
been '-i').

>>
>> Once you understand that, all becomes clear.

Unfortunately, the question about the rationale for using the GNU Awk
Extension mechanism - which was my original question - isn't answered
by that or any clearer.

> 
> Sure, but, interestingly, just like Janis, I also seem to have a false,
> memory of there having been some other inplace mechanism that was
> replaced by the -i inplace include (not necessarily a -i option).

I never needed the "inplace" feature with Awk[*] so my (wrong) memories
were not based on practical experience; practical experience would have
lead to a more enduring (likely correct) memory, I'd expect.

[*] On shell level I use a two-step process with a temporary, to make
processing typically also a bit more reliable.

> There is no evidence of any such in the available materials, though.
> 
> We might have both been duped by something unclear someone said once,
> (perhaps here)?

It's no biggie, I just wanted some clarity.

Thanks for the investigation.

Janis

Back to comp.lang.awk | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

GNU Awk - inplace editing Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-23 07:28 +0200
  Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 06:02 +0000
  Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-05-23 08:22 +0000
    Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-05-23 08:58 +0000
      Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-23 16:08 +0200
  Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing mack@the-knife.org (Mack The Knife) - 2025-05-25 04:00 +0000
  Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing Ed Morton <mortonspam@gmail.com> - 2025-05-25 15:27 -0500
    Re: GNU Awk - inplace editing Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-05-26 02:11 +0200

csiph-web