info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
(GAWK 4.1.4) get_file() API?
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Kenny McCormack
Aug 31, 2016, 7:57:02 PM8/31/16
to
About a year ago, I started a thread here about getting the remote host IP
address - in the context of using the GAWK networking facility. My
solution (which I posted in that thread) took the form of a patch to "io.c"
in the GAWK source code distribution. In response, Andy stated that it
could have been done using something called "get_file". Further exchanges
clarified that get_file() was present in the "master branch", but not in
the then current release version: 4.1.3 (and thus not available to me).
Given that, it was my understanding that get_file() would be present in the
next release version. This was one of the reasons why I was anticipating
the release of 4.1.4 - so that I could test out this function. However, as
far as I can tell (by grepping for "get_file" in *.[hc]), it's not there.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why something that was in
"the master branch" a year ago, is not in the current release version?
--
This is the GOP's problem. When you're at the beginning of the year
and you've got nine Democrats running for the nomination, maybe one or
two of them are Dennis Kucinich. When you have nine Republicans, seven
or eight of them are Michelle Bachmann.
address - in the context of using the GAWK networking facility. My
solution (which I posted in that thread) took the form of a patch to "io.c"
in the GAWK source code distribution. In response, Andy stated that it
could have been done using something called "get_file". Further exchanges
clarified that get_file() was present in the "master branch", but not in
the then current release version: 4.1.3 (and thus not available to me).
Given that, it was my understanding that get_file() would be present in the
next release version. This was one of the reasons why I was anticipating
the release of 4.1.4 - so that I could test out this function. However, as
far as I can tell (by grepping for "get_file" in *.[hc]), it's not there.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason why something that was in
"the master branch" a year ago, is not in the current release version?
--
This is the GOP's problem. When you're at the beginning of the year
and you've got nine Democrats running for the nomination, maybe one or
two of them are Dennis Kucinich. When you have nine Republicans, seven
or eight of them are Michelle Bachmann.
Aharon Robbins
Aug 31, 2016, 10:52:32 PM8/31/16
to
In article <nq7qsc$k80$1...@news.xmission.com>,
The master branch is Not Yet Ready for Prime Time.
You can always build from sources from Git. Andy works that way
all the time.
--
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>Am I missing something? Is there some reason why something that was in
>"the master branch" a year ago, is not in the current release version?
Because the current release was made from the gawk-4.1-stable branch.
>Am I missing something? Is there some reason why something that was in
>"the master branch" a year ago, is not in the current release version?
The master branch is Not Yet Ready for Prime Time.
You can always build from sources from Git. Andy works that way
all the time.
--
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
Kenny McCormack
Sep 1, 2016, 7:33:48 AM9/1/16
to
In article <nq855f$2ul$1...@dont-email.me>,
assumption - that the "master branch" would become the next release - was
wrong. So, is there any indication as to when get_file() will become
available to us peons?
Thanks for responding, BTW.
>You can always build from sources from Git.
Yeah, but that would involve gittin' with git.
>Andy works that way all the time.
Clearly so. Which makes it a little tricky for him to troubleshoot the
problems experienced by us down in the trenches...
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:
http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ThePublicGood
Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote:
>In article <nq7qsc$k80$1...@news.xmission.com>,
>Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>Am I missing something? Is there some reason why something that was in
>>"the master branch" a year ago, is not in the current release version?
>
>Because the current release was made from the gawk-4.1-stable branch.
>The master branch is Not Yet Ready for Prime Time.
Yeah, I figured it must be soemthing like that. I.e., that my basic
>In article <nq7qsc$k80$1...@news.xmission.com>,
>Kenny McCormack <gaz...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>>Am I missing something? Is there some reason why something that was in
>>"the master branch" a year ago, is not in the current release version?
>
>Because the current release was made from the gawk-4.1-stable branch.
>The master branch is Not Yet Ready for Prime Time.
assumption - that the "master branch" would become the next release - was
wrong. So, is there any indication as to when get_file() will become
available to us peons?
Thanks for responding, BTW.
>You can always build from sources from Git.
>Andy works that way all the time.
problems experienced by us down in the trenches...
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:
http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/ThePublicGood
Andrew Schorr
Sep 1, 2016, 8:51:11 AM9/1/16
to
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 7:33:48 AM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Yeah, but that would involve gittin' with git.
It's pretty straightforward:
> Yeah, but that would involve gittin' with git.
git clone git://git.savannah.gnu.org/gawk.git && cd gawk && ./bootstrap.sh && ./configure && make && make check && make install
Of course, one must invoke "configure" with the proper arguments for your system (--prefix?) to ensure that "make install" will put the results in the right place.
> Clearly so. Which makes it a little tricky for him to troubleshoot the
> problems experienced by us down in the trenches...
Regards,
Andy
Kenny McCormack
Sep 2, 2016, 6:14:59 AM9/2/16
to
In article <9d2842e6-0b9b-478d...@googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Schorr <asc...@telemetry-investments.com> wrote:
...
>I have been using it in production for quite some time, but it does
>require building the master branch. As Arnold noted, the master branch is
>not quite ready yet, but it works for me. I think the main danger is that
>the behavior of some of the new features may change, so one must be
>careful about taking advantage of them.
Understood. But right now I am looking at ways of taking the get_file()
routine and integrating it into 4.1.4 (for my own personal use, of course).
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:
http://www.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/CLCtopics
Andrew Schorr <asc...@telemetry-investments.com> wrote:
...
>> Clearly so. Which makes it a little tricky for him to troubleshoot the
>> problems experienced by us down in the trenches...
>
>Sorry for having mentioned get_file prematurely.
No problem. But, yeah, it did throw me off for a bit.
>> problems experienced by us down in the trenches...
>
>Sorry for having mentioned get_file prematurely.
>I have been using it in production for quite some time, but it does
>require building the master branch. As Arnold noted, the master branch is
>not quite ready yet, but it works for me. I think the main danger is that
>the behavior of some of the new features may change, so one must be
>careful about taking advantage of them.
routine and integrating it into 4.1.4 (for my own personal use, of course).
--
The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4
lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in
compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following web address:
0 new messages