Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: set -F kills read -t

On 03/18/2014 06:17 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:

Pardon me while I provide further evidence in support of the theorem that
the best way to get the correct answer from the internet is to post the
wrong answer.
Who's answer was wrong?
(except of course that the size of the input is not predetermined).  If
you cojole that C into a runnable program and try it, you'll find that
it behaves just the way "read -t" does.  If you don't want that fcntl()
in there, don't pass the -t option.
Ok, then how else would one write a function that could use arguments *or* piped input? grep does it, and doesn't need an arbitrary wait. Again, in *practice* the " -t 1 " seems perfectly good enough, I don't want to belabour this, it's a theoretical/philosophical point only.

   if read -t input
   then print "I definitely read input: $input"
   elif (( $#input ))
   then print "Error, input unchanged: $input"
   else print "End of file: $input"

Ok, that  at least covers the bases if the read failed

} Identical runs of identical code should produce identical results, no?

No.  Consider for example:

    for (( count=1; count <= 10000; count++ )) do
      if read -t something
      then print "GOT: $something"; break
      print $count

This happily counts to 10000, stopping as soon as it gets input.  Exactly
how many numbers are printed before it stops depends on when the input
arrives.  Identical runs of identical code, but not identical results.
If the most important thing is watching it count, then this is exactly
what "read -t" is for.  If the important thing is "GOT: $something",
then don't use -t.
Point made. That's well and good, I can see that " -t " would be exactly right in that situation, but in my
pipe situation, it's not exactly right.
} Or at least warn you if that isn't going to happen. I appeal to the
} doctrine of least surprise.

I appeal to the documentation:

     -t [ NUM ]
           Test if input is available BEFORE ATTEMPTING TO READ.  ...
	  If no input is available, return status 1 AND DO NOT SET
Yeah ... I guess in my still synchronous and 'blocking' mind, when there's a pipe there is *always* input so always 'available'. It will take some getting used to the idea that the various steps in a long sequence of piped functions can quit any time they like in any
order that happens to happen.

Consider what would happen if "echo" produced a gigabyte of output, or
a terabyte, or a petabyte.  Where is all of that supposed to go while
waiting for echo to return?  Do you always expect your web browser to
download an entire video before beginning to play it?
A valid point. I have no issue that " -t [seconds to wait] " is available when needed, but in
the case of:

echo "a string" | func

I hardly think that func should not politely wait for "a string", and as my tests showed, sometimes it didn't. I dunno, maybe there is no way that 'read' can be aware that something to the left of it in a pipe situation has returned, so what I'm wanting might be impossible. If it was possible it would be the '-p' switch: 'pipe mode' ... wait for piped
input to finish.
} It's just a wrapper function. In this test case, around 'grep'.

OK, but the wrapper must be doing *something*.  I mean, this is a
wrapper around grep:

   mygrep() {
     print -u2 "Hi, I'm going to grep now."
     grep "$@"

This will perfectly happily read from a pipe, a file, or a file named
in the arguments, without needing "read" at all.  So what exactly is
your wrapper doing, such that it needs to consume standard input before
grep does?
Yabut, in the pipe situation you don't supply a filespec ....

Shoot. All this 'read' stuff has been a colossal mistake. Damn, everything I read on the internet said 'read' was the way to go. HAAA, which get's back to your theorem! I see now how I've been barking up the wrong tree. It never even occurred to me that " $@ " would soak up piped input, I thought " $@ " stuff had to be arguments after the command <:-(

Sorry Bart, I'm a long study.

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author