Re: [bug-gawk] in-place edit request

[Andrew J. Schorr]

Hi Ed,

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 11:44:41AM -0600, Ed Morton wrote:
> I have a feeling this is going to go down well but here goes: can we
> change the existing un-released code to use some other letter for
> extension functionality from "-i" to some other letter (I was going
> to suggest the obvious "e" or "E" but I see they're already taken so
> how about -x for eXtension?) and then use "-i" for "inplace"?

I don't actually agree with you about that.  Currently, "-i" tells
gawk to "include" a source code file.  And "-l" tells it to load
a shared library extension.  These are fairly intuitive option names
that have been used for years by the xgawk approach.  But I'll grant
that the installed base of code is pretty small, so if the community
thinks -i is better used for in-place, then so be it.

That being said, there is still not a consensus that the in-place feature
should be added to the main gawk binary.  There is no real point in
debating what option letter should be used for the feature unless we
first agree that the main binary needs to support in-place editing.

> From a user perspective "-i" is no better than any other letter for
> extensions but "gawk -i" is a much better choice than "gawk -i
> inplace" for in-place editing since all other tools use "-i" so it's
> exactly what users would expect.
> 
> I know it's more work but this stuff, once it's out there, will be
> around for a VERY long time and used by VERY many people and this is
> our one chance to get it right from a user perspective.

I think you first need to make the case that in-place editing belongs
in the main gawk binary.  We can then debate the proper allocation of option
letters.  Given that this feature can be implemented in an extension, I think
there's a natural reluctance to incorporate it into the main gawk codebase.
The point of the extension mechanism is to enable developers to add new
capabilities without having to patch the main gawk code.  I'm still not
convinced that an "awk-i" wrapper script isn't adequate.  Why isn't that
good enough?

Regards,
Andy