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

[M]

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"4.15 Exercises" is out-of-date.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