GNU bug report logs - #47390
-i and -n options are order-sensitive

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: rgrosso <r.grosso <at> gsi.de>
To: Nora Platiel <nplatiel <at> gmx.us>, <47390 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: bug#47390: -i and -n options are order-sensitive
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 12:40:27 +0200

Hello Nora,

thanks a lot for the explanations and sorry for the noise. Indeed, as 
you said, the manual is clear about both pitfalls:

- that the '-i' should not be followed by any other short option in 
general and

- that '-n' together with '-i' disables printing in the file so to say.

Thanks again for your time and for the extensive answer (I guess you 
might have been tempted by a much shorter "RTFM" answer :-) )

Best regards, have a nice day,

   Raffaele


On 4/28/21 11:09 PM, Nora Platiel wrote:
> Hello,
> they are not order-sensitive, but the -i flag takes an optional argument (SUFFIX), therefore it cannot be grouped together with other short flags unless it is the last one.
>
>> To remove the first N lines from a big text file I used to do:
>>
>> sed -in '1,Nd' bigfile.txt
>>
>> and it was working as expected.
> In this invocation, the "n" is not a flag, it is the argument to the -i 
flag.
> Same as:
> sed --in-place=n '1,Nd' bigfile.txt
> which tells sed to use "n" as the backup suffix (creating "bigfile.txtn" as backup of "bigfile.txt").
>
>> Assuming the order of the flags does not matter I did once:
>>
>> sed -ni '1,Nd' bigfile.txt
>>
>> which deleted the whole content of the file. Is this behaviour expected?
> In this invocation, you are passing both the -n and -i flags (the latter with no argument, which disables backup).
> Same as:
> sed --quiet --in-place '1,Nd' bigfile.txt
> The output file will be empty as expected, because -n/--quiet disables automatic printing and you are not using any printing command in your sed 
script.
>
>>  From the user point of view this seems like a rather dangerous bug.
> The -i flag of sed is well documented, and the docs include a warning for the very same pitfall you encountered:
> https://www.gnu.org/software/sed/manual/sed.html#Command_002dLine-Options
> You may think that flags with optional arguments are error prone (and I 
would agree), but there's nothing we can do about it here. GNU flags have 
worked like this for a long time.
>
>> I think, flags not taking an argument should be insensitive to the order.
> Usually they are, unless they are exclusive and the last one takes effect, but this is not the problem here.
>
>> Currently, to get the same result without running the risk to forget the
>> right order of the flags and deleting the file content, I do:
>>
>> sed -i -e '1,Nd' bigfile.txt
> This has yet a different effect: the -i flag is without argument (no backup) and the -n is not present (autoprinting is on). The -e makes no difference in this case because there is only one script. If you want the "-in" effect, the only alternative is "--in-place=n".
>
> Regards,
> NP
>

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.