On Thursday 19 July 2012 12:54:37 Tom Rini wrote:
On 07/19/2012 09:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2012 11:38:39 Tom Rini wrote:
On 07/19/2012 08:21 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 19 July 2012 11:08:10 Tom Rini wrote:
On 07/18/2012 08:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 19:45:52 Allen Martin wrote: > +MAJOR=$($gas --version | head -1 | awk '{print $NF}' | > cut -d . -f 1) +MINOR=$($gas --version | head -1 | awk > '{print $NF}' | cut -d . -f 2) + +printf "%02d%02d\n" > $MAJOR $MINOR
can be replaced with a single awk script:
$gas --version | awk '{ gsub(/[.]/, " ", $NF) $0 = $NF printf "%02d%02d\n", $1, $2 exit }'
That looks much longer and we call this once so a few execs is noise.
here's a shorter version: $gas --version | awk '{ gsub(/[.]/, " ", $NF); $0 = $NF; printf "%02d%02d\n", $1, $2; exit }'
And still over 80 chars before we assign it to a variable. I could get it to 77 chars with all whitespace removed.
which is why i unrolled it to make it readable. i don't know what metrics you're using here, but i don't think the awk version is "longer" by really any of them.
The metric of 'wc -c' and "what fits in a single line, unwrapped on an 80x24 terminal." awk is great and awesome, don't get me wrong, but it's not doing the job as compactly as the original.
obviously i disagree. i find the awk version "better" in just about every way. maybe someone else will jump in with their favorite bike. -mike