Somehow I created a nondeterministic sh script





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







1















I created the following script:



#!bin/bash
cat > Top10 <<EOF
Linux Mint 17.2
Ubuntu 15.10
Debian GNU/Linux 8.2
Mageria 5
Fedora 23
openSUSE Leap 42.1
Arch Linux
CentOS 7.2-1511
PCLinuxOS 2014.12
Slackware Linux 14.1
FreeBSD
EOF
sed -ri "s/^[^0-9]*$//" Top10
sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10
sed -r -i "s/(.*)/L1/" Top10
sed -r -i "y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/" Top10
sort Top10 -g -o Top10
cat Top10


When I run it a few times the following happens:





As you can see sometimes the Top10 file turns out empty and sometimes it turn out the way I needed it to be. I know that the command which replaces the extensions from the end to the front of a line is done poorly. I ran this script on a VMware virtual machine. Could that be the reason?










share|improve this question

























  • I'm flagging to close this question as off-topic because as it currently stands, it's not about Ubuntu within the scope as defined in the help center. Please edit your question to help explain what your ubuntu-specific problem or question is.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58











  • If you have a question about GNU Sed or shell scripting in general, you may be able to get help at Unix & Linux.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58






  • 1





    Another thing to notice: You shouldn't type sh zadatak3.sh to invoke the script. Typing the name of the shell on the command line when invoking a script is not the proper way to invoke a script. The correct place to indicate which shell to use is the #! line at the start of the script. You shouldn't be overriding that. You should have typed ./zadatak3.sh instead.

    – kasperd
    Jan 9 '16 at 23:17


















1















I created the following script:



#!bin/bash
cat > Top10 <<EOF
Linux Mint 17.2
Ubuntu 15.10
Debian GNU/Linux 8.2
Mageria 5
Fedora 23
openSUSE Leap 42.1
Arch Linux
CentOS 7.2-1511
PCLinuxOS 2014.12
Slackware Linux 14.1
FreeBSD
EOF
sed -ri "s/^[^0-9]*$//" Top10
sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10
sed -r -i "s/(.*)/L1/" Top10
sed -r -i "y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/" Top10
sort Top10 -g -o Top10
cat Top10


When I run it a few times the following happens:





As you can see sometimes the Top10 file turns out empty and sometimes it turn out the way I needed it to be. I know that the command which replaces the extensions from the end to the front of a line is done poorly. I ran this script on a VMware virtual machine. Could that be the reason?










share|improve this question

























  • I'm flagging to close this question as off-topic because as it currently stands, it's not about Ubuntu within the scope as defined in the help center. Please edit your question to help explain what your ubuntu-specific problem or question is.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58











  • If you have a question about GNU Sed or shell scripting in general, you may be able to get help at Unix & Linux.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58






  • 1





    Another thing to notice: You shouldn't type sh zadatak3.sh to invoke the script. Typing the name of the shell on the command line when invoking a script is not the proper way to invoke a script. The correct place to indicate which shell to use is the #! line at the start of the script. You shouldn't be overriding that. You should have typed ./zadatak3.sh instead.

    – kasperd
    Jan 9 '16 at 23:17














1












1








1








I created the following script:



#!bin/bash
cat > Top10 <<EOF
Linux Mint 17.2
Ubuntu 15.10
Debian GNU/Linux 8.2
Mageria 5
Fedora 23
openSUSE Leap 42.1
Arch Linux
CentOS 7.2-1511
PCLinuxOS 2014.12
Slackware Linux 14.1
FreeBSD
EOF
sed -ri "s/^[^0-9]*$//" Top10
sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10
sed -r -i "s/(.*)/L1/" Top10
sed -r -i "y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/" Top10
sort Top10 -g -o Top10
cat Top10


When I run it a few times the following happens:





As you can see sometimes the Top10 file turns out empty and sometimes it turn out the way I needed it to be. I know that the command which replaces the extensions from the end to the front of a line is done poorly. I ran this script on a VMware virtual machine. Could that be the reason?










share|improve this question
















I created the following script:



#!bin/bash
cat > Top10 <<EOF
Linux Mint 17.2
Ubuntu 15.10
Debian GNU/Linux 8.2
Mageria 5
Fedora 23
openSUSE Leap 42.1
Arch Linux
CentOS 7.2-1511
PCLinuxOS 2014.12
Slackware Linux 14.1
FreeBSD
EOF
sed -ri "s/^[^0-9]*$//" Top10
sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10
sed -r -i "s/(.*)/L1/" Top10
sed -r -i "y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/" Top10
sort Top10 -g -o Top10
cat Top10


When I run it a few times the following happens:





As you can see sometimes the Top10 file turns out empty and sometimes it turn out the way I needed it to be. I know that the command which replaces the extensions from the end to the front of a line is done poorly. I ran this script on a VMware virtual machine. Could that be the reason?







command-line bash scripts sed text-processing






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jan 9 '16 at 16:39









muru

1




1










asked Jan 9 '16 at 15:50









GrgGrg

132




132













  • I'm flagging to close this question as off-topic because as it currently stands, it's not about Ubuntu within the scope as defined in the help center. Please edit your question to help explain what your ubuntu-specific problem or question is.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58











  • If you have a question about GNU Sed or shell scripting in general, you may be able to get help at Unix & Linux.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58






  • 1





    Another thing to notice: You shouldn't type sh zadatak3.sh to invoke the script. Typing the name of the shell on the command line when invoking a script is not the proper way to invoke a script. The correct place to indicate which shell to use is the #! line at the start of the script. You shouldn't be overriding that. You should have typed ./zadatak3.sh instead.

    – kasperd
    Jan 9 '16 at 23:17



















  • I'm flagging to close this question as off-topic because as it currently stands, it's not about Ubuntu within the scope as defined in the help center. Please edit your question to help explain what your ubuntu-specific problem or question is.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58











  • If you have a question about GNU Sed or shell scripting in general, you may be able to get help at Unix & Linux.

    – cat
    Jan 9 '16 at 15:58






  • 1





    Another thing to notice: You shouldn't type sh zadatak3.sh to invoke the script. Typing the name of the shell on the command line when invoking a script is not the proper way to invoke a script. The correct place to indicate which shell to use is the #! line at the start of the script. You shouldn't be overriding that. You should have typed ./zadatak3.sh instead.

    – kasperd
    Jan 9 '16 at 23:17

















I'm flagging to close this question as off-topic because as it currently stands, it's not about Ubuntu within the scope as defined in the help center. Please edit your question to help explain what your ubuntu-specific problem or question is.

– cat
Jan 9 '16 at 15:58





I'm flagging to close this question as off-topic because as it currently stands, it's not about Ubuntu within the scope as defined in the help center. Please edit your question to help explain what your ubuntu-specific problem or question is.

– cat
Jan 9 '16 at 15:58













If you have a question about GNU Sed or shell scripting in general, you may be able to get help at Unix & Linux.

– cat
Jan 9 '16 at 15:58





If you have a question about GNU Sed or shell scripting in general, you may be able to get help at Unix & Linux.

– cat
Jan 9 '16 at 15:58




1




1





Another thing to notice: You shouldn't type sh zadatak3.sh to invoke the script. Typing the name of the shell on the command line when invoking a script is not the proper way to invoke a script. The correct place to indicate which shell to use is the #! line at the start of the script. You shouldn't be overriding that. You should have typed ./zadatak3.sh instead.

– kasperd
Jan 9 '16 at 23:17





Another thing to notice: You shouldn't type sh zadatak3.sh to invoke the script. Typing the name of the shell on the command line when invoking a script is not the proper way to invoke a script. The correct place to indicate which shell to use is the #! line at the start of the script. You shouldn't be overriding that. You should have typed ./zadatak3.sh instead.

– kasperd
Jan 9 '16 at 23:17










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















5














More specifically, pipes are not deterministic.



I.e. in a pipe such as this one:



command1 file | command2 | command3 >file


it's not guaranteed that command1 file will be executed before command3 >file.



So the race condition between command1 file and command3 >file makes it so that sometimes the file is first read by command1 file and sometimes the file is first truncated by command3 >file, giving the expected output in the first case and a giving an empty output in the second case.



This can be fixed by using sponge (in the moreutils package) to write the output to the file, to make sure that the output gets written to the file only after the rest of the pipe has finished executing:



command1 file | command2 | command3 | sponge file





share|improve this answer





















  • 2





    I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

    – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
    Jan 9 '16 at 19:00











  • @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

    – kos
    Jan 10 '16 at 5:30













  • @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

    – kos
    Jan 12 '16 at 18:18











  • @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

    – kos
    Jan 12 '16 at 18:58





















2














sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10


causes the file to be first overwritten with > Top10 and only then processed by sed (the file is empty at that time)






share|improve this answer































    2














    There is no reason to run 6 sed commands when you can do it in one:



    sed -ri 's/^[^0-9]*$//; s/(.*)/L1/; y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/; s/(.*)([[:space:]])([[:digit:]]*.*)$/3 1/' Top10


    Note, in particular, how the second pipe of sed commands could be combined into one expression if you just grouped your matches differently. Since you wanted to discard the leading whitespace anyway, and then add a space after the version, you could do that in the original match itself, by grouping the leading space and the version separately.






    share|improve this answer
























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "89"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f719081%2fsomehow-i-created-a-nondeterministic-sh-script%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      5














      More specifically, pipes are not deterministic.



      I.e. in a pipe such as this one:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 >file


      it's not guaranteed that command1 file will be executed before command3 >file.



      So the race condition between command1 file and command3 >file makes it so that sometimes the file is first read by command1 file and sometimes the file is first truncated by command3 >file, giving the expected output in the first case and a giving an empty output in the second case.



      This can be fixed by using sponge (in the moreutils package) to write the output to the file, to make sure that the output gets written to the file only after the rest of the pipe has finished executing:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 | sponge file





      share|improve this answer





















      • 2





        I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

        – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
        Jan 9 '16 at 19:00











      • @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

        – kos
        Jan 10 '16 at 5:30













      • @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:18











      • @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:58


















      5














      More specifically, pipes are not deterministic.



      I.e. in a pipe such as this one:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 >file


      it's not guaranteed that command1 file will be executed before command3 >file.



      So the race condition between command1 file and command3 >file makes it so that sometimes the file is first read by command1 file and sometimes the file is first truncated by command3 >file, giving the expected output in the first case and a giving an empty output in the second case.



      This can be fixed by using sponge (in the moreutils package) to write the output to the file, to make sure that the output gets written to the file only after the rest of the pipe has finished executing:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 | sponge file





      share|improve this answer





















      • 2





        I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

        – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
        Jan 9 '16 at 19:00











      • @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

        – kos
        Jan 10 '16 at 5:30













      • @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:18











      • @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:58
















      5












      5








      5







      More specifically, pipes are not deterministic.



      I.e. in a pipe such as this one:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 >file


      it's not guaranteed that command1 file will be executed before command3 >file.



      So the race condition between command1 file and command3 >file makes it so that sometimes the file is first read by command1 file and sometimes the file is first truncated by command3 >file, giving the expected output in the first case and a giving an empty output in the second case.



      This can be fixed by using sponge (in the moreutils package) to write the output to the file, to make sure that the output gets written to the file only after the rest of the pipe has finished executing:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 | sponge file





      share|improve this answer















      More specifically, pipes are not deterministic.



      I.e. in a pipe such as this one:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 >file


      it's not guaranteed that command1 file will be executed before command3 >file.



      So the race condition between command1 file and command3 >file makes it so that sometimes the file is first read by command1 file and sometimes the file is first truncated by command3 >file, giving the expected output in the first case and a giving an empty output in the second case.



      This can be fixed by using sponge (in the moreutils package) to write the output to the file, to make sure that the output gets written to the file only after the rest of the pipe has finished executing:



      command1 file | command2 | command3 | sponge file






      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:37









      Community

      1




      1










      answered Jan 9 '16 at 16:43









      koskos

      26k971122




      26k971122








      • 2





        I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

        – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
        Jan 9 '16 at 19:00











      • @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

        – kos
        Jan 10 '16 at 5:30













      • @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:18











      • @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:58
















      • 2





        I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

        – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
        Jan 9 '16 at 19:00











      • @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

        – kos
        Jan 10 '16 at 5:30













      • @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:18











      • @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

        – kos
        Jan 12 '16 at 18:58










      2




      2





      I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

      – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
      Jan 9 '16 at 19:00





      I think one possible solution in addition to that would be to turn sed commands into one single script , instead of piping it over and over.

      – Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
      Jan 9 '16 at 19:00













      @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

      – kos
      Jan 10 '16 at 5:30







      @Serg Sure. Actually that would be the way to go (my answer only wanted to address why the problem showed up and how to fix simlar problems in general). In this specific case the way to go is muru's answer.

      – kos
      Jan 10 '16 at 5:30















      @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

      – kos
      Jan 12 '16 at 18:18





      @StenSoft Since every command of the pipe is run in a subshell, each redirection is resolved by a different subshell, and since the order in which the subshells are to be run is not defined, there's a race condition between the first and the last command: running for((i=0;i<20;i++)); do echo foo >file | echo bar >file; cat file; done should be enough to be convinced of that.

      – kos
      Jan 12 '16 at 18:18













      @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

      – kos
      Jan 12 '16 at 18:58







      @StenSoft I'm afraid it's often but not always: paste.ubuntu.com/14479882. You problem is being convinced that the redirections are always resolved first. That is true for a single command, but not for commands in a pipe: in that case the resolution of the redirections for each single command is delegated to the subshell that executes the command.

      – kos
      Jan 12 '16 at 18:58















      2














      sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10


      causes the file to be first overwritten with > Top10 and only then processed by sed (the file is empty at that time)






      share|improve this answer




























        2














        sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10


        causes the file to be first overwritten with > Top10 and only then processed by sed (the file is empty at that time)






        share|improve this answer


























          2












          2








          2







          sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10


          causes the file to be first overwritten with > Top10 and only then processed by sed (the file is empty at that time)






          share|improve this answer













          sed -r "s/(.*)([[:space:]][[:digit:]]*.*)$/21/" Top10 | sed -r "s/([[:space:]])([[:digit:]])/2/" | sed -r "s/([[:digit:]])([[:alpha:]])/1 2/" > Top10


          causes the file to be first overwritten with > Top10 and only then processed by sed (the file is empty at that time)







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 9 '16 at 16:32









          StenSoftStenSoft

          21614




          21614























              2














              There is no reason to run 6 sed commands when you can do it in one:



              sed -ri 's/^[^0-9]*$//; s/(.*)/L1/; y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/; s/(.*)([[:space:]])([[:digit:]]*.*)$/3 1/' Top10


              Note, in particular, how the second pipe of sed commands could be combined into one expression if you just grouped your matches differently. Since you wanted to discard the leading whitespace anyway, and then add a space after the version, you could do that in the original match itself, by grouping the leading space and the version separately.






              share|improve this answer




























                2














                There is no reason to run 6 sed commands when you can do it in one:



                sed -ri 's/^[^0-9]*$//; s/(.*)/L1/; y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/; s/(.*)([[:space:]])([[:digit:]]*.*)$/3 1/' Top10


                Note, in particular, how the second pipe of sed commands could be combined into one expression if you just grouped your matches differently. Since you wanted to discard the leading whitespace anyway, and then add a space after the version, you could do that in the original match itself, by grouping the leading space and the version separately.






                share|improve this answer


























                  2












                  2








                  2







                  There is no reason to run 6 sed commands when you can do it in one:



                  sed -ri 's/^[^0-9]*$//; s/(.*)/L1/; y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/; s/(.*)([[:space:]])([[:digit:]]*.*)$/3 1/' Top10


                  Note, in particular, how the second pipe of sed commands could be combined into one expression if you just grouped your matches differently. Since you wanted to discard the leading whitespace anyway, and then add a space after the version, you could do that in the original match itself, by grouping the leading space and the version separately.






                  share|improve this answer













                  There is no reason to run 6 sed commands when you can do it in one:



                  sed -ri 's/^[^0-9]*$//; s/(.*)/L1/; y/[aeiou]/[AEIOU]/; s/(.*)([[:space:]])([[:digit:]]*.*)$/3 1/' Top10


                  Note, in particular, how the second pipe of sed commands could be combined into one expression if you just grouped your matches differently. Since you wanted to discard the leading whitespace anyway, and then add a space after the version, you could do that in the original match itself, by grouping the leading space and the version separately.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 9 '16 at 16:43









                  murumuru

                  1




                  1






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f719081%2fsomehow-i-created-a-nondeterministic-sh-script%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Human spaceflight

                      Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                      張江高科駅