Re: [bug-gawk] Suggestion to simplify one of the examples

[M]

Oh, some troubles with a mail client. I'm sorry for posting a duplicate.

20.06.2019, 18:08, "M" <address@hidden>:
> You are welcome! And it seems that after these changes the second exercise 
> from "4.15 Exercises" is out-of-date.
>
> _______________
>
> Yours respectfully,
> Mark Krauze
>
> 18.06.2019, 20:27, "address@hidden" <address@hidden>:
>>  Thanks for the suggested change. That along with making the first 'if'
>>  into a 'while' improves the program a lot. I will be pushing changes
>>  to Git shortly.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Arnold
>>
>>  M <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>   When rereading the last version of the manual, I noticed vague operations 
>>> with a variable "j" in the example "Remove text between /* and */, 
>>> inclusive" (4.10.1 Using getline with No Arguments).
>>>   If we admit that there are some drawbacks (e.g. the program doesn't work 
>>> if one comment ends and another begins on the same line, it produces 
>>> "substr" boundary warnings, and so on), why don't we write in this way:
>>>
>>>   # Remove text between /* and */, inclusive
>>>   {
>>>      if ((i = index($0, "/*")) != 0) {
>>>         out = substr($0, 1, i - 1) # leading part of the string
>>>         rest = substr($0, i + 2) # ... */ ...
>>>         while ((j = index(rest, "*/")) == 0) { # is */ in trailing part?
>>>            # get more text
>>>            if (getline <= 0) {
>>>               print("unexpected EOF or error:", ERRNO) > "/dev/stderr"
>>>               exit
>>>            }
>>>            # build up the line using string concatenation
>>>            rest = rest $0
>>>         }
>>>         rest = substr(rest, j + 2) # remove comment
>>>         # build up the output line using string concatenation
>>>         $0 = out rest
>>>      }
>>>      print $0
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   ##############################
>>>
>>>   ?
>>>
>>>   Indeed, the goal is to show the usage of "getline", not to demonstrate 
>>> e.g. control statements or "break" statement.
>>>
>>>   _______________
>>>
>>>   Yours respectfully,
>>>   Mark Krauze