Talk:Tokenize a string: Difference between revisions
→Remove tr: Conterarguments to removing tr.
(Which Shell for Unix pipes?) |
(→Remove tr: Conterarguments to removing tr.) |
||
Line 5:
# There are likely to be too many tasks that tr cannot perform.
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
: While it's not a programming language in the commonly held sense of the term, that puts it in the same company as declarative languages such as ladder logic or languages used in PLC and ASIC design. (And I would argue that there's enough variability in those domains to make them worth comparison as well.)
: I also agree it's broken with respect to meeting the task requirements. Using a period for item separation is unidiomatic for the context within which tr would get used for such a purpose. More appropriate would be replacing the , with a newline. Still ''more'' appropriate would be replacing it with a null character.
: The question of how many tasks tr can perform is a question of the tool's domain; Its parameter syntax effectively puts it in the category of a domain-specific language. If there are other languages which service the domain (which practically any string processing language does, in addition to '''sed''', another common UNIX tool), then it becomes worthy of intradomain comparison with those languages. If the issue is whether or not a particular UNIX tool can be considered a language in and of itself, then consider whether or not that tool is part of a POSIX spec; It's plausible that that particular spec might be a more suitable umbrella for the code example. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 02:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
==Unix Pipes and the shell==
| |||