On 15.09.2012 07:39, Martin Vaeth wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanag...@hotmail.com> wrote:The "pipe processes executed in subprocess" issue is not standardized
>> On 13.09.2012 10:14, Martin Vaeth wrote:
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> There are several other problems with awk than only the speed:
>>>>> 1. It is not that standardized; probably there are also versions with
>>>> In both of those respects we have more issues with shells than with awk.
>>> For shells, almost all current systems follow POSIX.
>> The prominent ones do. Nonetheless even some basic constructs aren't
> So what? If you use incompatible expansions of a particular shell,
(probably because shells do behave differently; but anyway); it's bad
to have different behaviour and to need to work around that with ugly
constructs to make that work reliable across POSIX shells.
(WRT the limitations by POSIX subset see below.)
> this runs in gernal only on the particular shell. Otherwise it isIt's the amount of available extensions in shells compared to awk, and
> standardized. So in which sense does that support your sentence
> "In both of those respects we have more issues with shells
> than with awk."?
it's the amount of necessary extensions in shells compared to awk.
I think I've explained that already with other words; you can write
The <(...) construct is also depending on support by the underlying OS.
>> not to mention to implement functionality that you
> For bash such a functionality remains yet to be found
But if supported by the OS it's at least available by all the prominent
> For zsh there are a few like assignment to USER.Yes. And leaving the standard path.
> Again: So what? If you really need zsh features, program in zsh...
Those, AFAICT, are limits you have depending on OS-restrictions, limits
>> Don't recall such older awk's limitations, and I've never stumbled
> See e.g. Section 11.9 in
that you find also in shells, and limits typical for non-contemporary
ancient systems. Anything more specific so that we can judge?
The quoted thread seems to be Windows/DOS oriented. It's beyond me which
> Some practical limits of particular awk implementations are
limits that environment will impose on the applications.
It would be helpful if you could quote a reference of any actual limits,
Here I agree with you.
> Just because your gawk implementation perhaps doesn't have it,
> OTOH, with perl you do not have to fear such a thing.Don't compare apples with bananas. Or is there a POSIX or ANSI standard
for perl, as opposed to POSIX shell and POSIX awk?
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.