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

[arnold]

Thanks.

Fixed. It'll show up in Git soon.

Arnold

M <address@hidden> wrote:

> 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 from "4.15 Exercises" is out-of-date.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