Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- From: Ed Morton <morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:27:54 -0500
trexx wrote:
Ed Fortunately I took a long bike ride and feel mellow now. I recommend you do the same
I advised you to re-post a concise question so you'd stand a better chance at getting an answer. You told me I was bothering you. I advised you to read the link on top-posting so you'd understand why it's ill-received in NGs. You ignored me. I gave you more details on the types of question that are unanswered in your original posting. You tell me I should take a bike ride. You now still have no responses to your original question, haven't provided the necessary information to get an answer, and are still top-posting.
You win. I surrender. Good luck,
Ed.
Regards Rex "Ed Morton" <morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:INCdnZcfw5U3u_zenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
trexx wrote:
Ed If you can't be bothered why bother me with such a long unrewarding response...
Bother you??? I was telling you why, in my opinion, you shouldn't expect many responses and suggesting how you could fix that. Advice is only unrewarding if you choose to ignore it.
As you would have noted... I did run both tawk and gawk on Schuler's question and tawk clearly had a very crisp solution.
Saying you ran tawk and gawk is not useful. You need to post the script. You posted 2 different scripts. Did you really try that "FPAT" thing in gawk? Or was the gawk script you ran the one at the end of your posting? Or was that other script unrelated to your question?
More importantly, what output did you expect? What problem are you trying to solve?
For the record, FPAT variable is used to specify
the pattern that the fields must mach, while FS specifies the pattern
for
the field separator. IF you were really interested you could have asked
me
instead of your shoot-from-the-lip response
I'm really not particularly interested and I'm a little surprised that you think I would be. I don't mind helping someone out occasionally, but I've certainly got no vested interest in solving the problem and no incentive to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the question
is.
I saw you post a long article that was unlikely to get a response for the reasons I stated. To try to help you I posted those reasons plus a suggestion of how you could repost in a way that might get a better response. Maybe others have more time to spend parsing each posting for relevant information. In the meantime, you may want to take a look at these netiquette suggestions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
Good luck,
Ed.
Regards Rex
"Ed Morton" <morton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:yd2dndEpScY5kPzeRVn-vg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
trexx wrote:
Gawk Gurus.. Tawk does the job with FS and FPAT switches set, while Gawk does not..
Since
Tawk is now obsolete I need learn more about Gawk...Are there switches similar to FS and FPAT that exist in Gawk?
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't be bothered to try to figure out what FPAT is, whether or not tawk and gawk have the same meaning for FS, try to figure out what script you ran in tawk vs awk to produce the output below, what parts of this posting you want us to look at, what preceeding messages in this or other threads are relevant, etc....
If you don't get many responses, you MAY want to start a new thread clearly stating your current problem, attempted script, and sample
in/out.
Ed.
.
- References:
- Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- From: Ed Morton
- Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- From: trexx
- Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- From: Ed Morton
- Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- From: trexx
- Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- Prev by Date: Re: NF for FIRST LINE of file is always "1"
- Next by Date: Re: Converting pain text to TeX
- Previous by thread: Re: Quoted fields containing field separator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|