Shells with the ability to treat `r` as a whitespace character
As a personal project, I'm trying to write a script to clean up some of the extraneous files that ship with Windows 10 that runs under Cygwin. I'd like the script to be copy and paste-able, which would require it to be robust against different kinds of newlines. Are there any sh
-like shells that expose the ability to treat r
as whitespace, possibly when some option is set?
It's a strange thing to do. The answer might boil down to "yes, that is a strange thing to do and there's no way to do it".
cygwin newlines
add a comment |
As a personal project, I'm trying to write a script to clean up some of the extraneous files that ship with Windows 10 that runs under Cygwin. I'd like the script to be copy and paste-able, which would require it to be robust against different kinds of newlines. Are there any sh
-like shells that expose the ability to treat r
as whitespace, possibly when some option is set?
It's a strange thing to do. The answer might boil down to "yes, that is a strange thing to do and there's no way to do it".
cygwin newlines
Anything againstdos2unix
or plain oldsed
?
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 hours ago
I'd like the script to be able to "just run" without the line endings being fixed up first. There are some languages/programs likepython
andperl
that are line-ending insensitive.
– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
Do you want a shebang line for a script that will run in such a shell, or just identifying a suitable shell that could be invoked directly?
– Michael Homer
2 hours ago
@MichaelHomer Both of those options are totally fine. As far as I can tell,bash
itself can't be configured to processr
differently.
– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
add a comment |
As a personal project, I'm trying to write a script to clean up some of the extraneous files that ship with Windows 10 that runs under Cygwin. I'd like the script to be copy and paste-able, which would require it to be robust against different kinds of newlines. Are there any sh
-like shells that expose the ability to treat r
as whitespace, possibly when some option is set?
It's a strange thing to do. The answer might boil down to "yes, that is a strange thing to do and there's no way to do it".
cygwin newlines
As a personal project, I'm trying to write a script to clean up some of the extraneous files that ship with Windows 10 that runs under Cygwin. I'd like the script to be copy and paste-able, which would require it to be robust against different kinds of newlines. Are there any sh
-like shells that expose the ability to treat r
as whitespace, possibly when some option is set?
It's a strange thing to do. The answer might boil down to "yes, that is a strange thing to do and there's no way to do it".
cygwin newlines
cygwin newlines
asked 2 hours ago
Gregory Nisbet
1,3371019
1,3371019
Anything againstdos2unix
or plain oldsed
?
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 hours ago
I'd like the script to be able to "just run" without the line endings being fixed up first. There are some languages/programs likepython
andperl
that are line-ending insensitive.
– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
Do you want a shebang line for a script that will run in such a shell, or just identifying a suitable shell that could be invoked directly?
– Michael Homer
2 hours ago
@MichaelHomer Both of those options are totally fine. As far as I can tell,bash
itself can't be configured to processr
differently.
– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Anything againstdos2unix
or plain oldsed
?
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 hours ago
I'd like the script to be able to "just run" without the line endings being fixed up first. There are some languages/programs likepython
andperl
that are line-ending insensitive.
– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
Do you want a shebang line for a script that will run in such a shell, or just identifying a suitable shell that could be invoked directly?
– Michael Homer
2 hours ago
@MichaelHomer Both of those options are totally fine. As far as I can tell,bash
itself can't be configured to processr
differently.
– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
Anything against
dos2unix
or plain old sed
?– Rui F Ribeiro
2 hours ago
Anything against
dos2unix
or plain old sed
?– Rui F Ribeiro
2 hours ago
I'd like the script to be able to "just run" without the line endings being fixed up first. There are some languages/programs like
python
and perl
that are line-ending insensitive.– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
I'd like the script to be able to "just run" without the line endings being fixed up first. There are some languages/programs like
python
and perl
that are line-ending insensitive.– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
Do you want a shebang line for a script that will run in such a shell, or just identifying a suitable shell that could be invoked directly?
– Michael Homer
2 hours ago
Do you want a shebang line for a script that will run in such a shell, or just identifying a suitable shell that could be invoked directly?
– Michael Homer
2 hours ago
@MichaelHomer Both of those options are totally fine. As far as I can tell,
bash
itself can't be configured to process r
differently.– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
@MichaelHomer Both of those options are totally fine. As far as I can tell,
bash
itself can't be configured to process r
differently.– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.
A standalone executable script will have a shebang line that identifies the interpreter to use:
#!/bin/sh
The problem is that, regardless of the interpreter, the shebang line itself will contain a carriage return character before the end, meaning that the interpreter won't be found (barring the unlikely executable name of literally
$'shr'
- which I think is illegal on Windows).
The other kind of executable script is a plain text file with the execute bit set, which POSIX requires to be interpreted as a script in the POSIX shell command language (when invoked from a compliant shell itself). This shell language, however, as you've found, treats carriage returns as data bytes, so you have the issue you've identified.
You have some options. One is to forego an actual executable script directly, and simply to invoke an interpreter for some other language first. You've identified Perl and Python, and in fact most scripting languages are happy with any contemporary line-ending format. Invoking the script as perl cleanup.pl
will not be a problem.
Many administrative tasks are much easier in a conventional shell language, however, and there is one more trick: end every line with a comment.
echo hello #
rm file.ext #
mv /path/other.fl /path/bin #
The #
character introduces a comment to the end of the line in all standard shells (in non-interactive contexts). The comment will include the carriage return byte, which is a fine element of a comment, and then end immediately afterwards with the terminating line feed byte.
It's important that there be that space before the hash: a #
inside a word does not begin a comment, but is part of the word.
You could run this script directly with a shell:
bash cleanup.sh
dash cleanup.sh
sh cleanup.sh
But if you're going to launch it by typing a command from an existing shell session, those POSIX scripts mentioned earlier will also work: just make the file executable, and then
./cleanup.sh
will run it using whatever your shell considers the right thing to do for a POSIX script.
Since this sounds like a one-off it probably isn't worth the effort of making it executable, so just sh cleanup.sh
seems adequate to me.
My honest suggestion for this situation is probably Powershell (or batch at a push), but I understand it's not what you want. WSL is another option: it handles carriage returns in the shebang line automatically, and then you can use comments for the rest.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
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: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491688%2fshells-with-the-ability-to-treat-r-as-a-whitespace-character%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.
A standalone executable script will have a shebang line that identifies the interpreter to use:
#!/bin/sh
The problem is that, regardless of the interpreter, the shebang line itself will contain a carriage return character before the end, meaning that the interpreter won't be found (barring the unlikely executable name of literally
$'shr'
- which I think is illegal on Windows).
The other kind of executable script is a plain text file with the execute bit set, which POSIX requires to be interpreted as a script in the POSIX shell command language (when invoked from a compliant shell itself). This shell language, however, as you've found, treats carriage returns as data bytes, so you have the issue you've identified.
You have some options. One is to forego an actual executable script directly, and simply to invoke an interpreter for some other language first. You've identified Perl and Python, and in fact most scripting languages are happy with any contemporary line-ending format. Invoking the script as perl cleanup.pl
will not be a problem.
Many administrative tasks are much easier in a conventional shell language, however, and there is one more trick: end every line with a comment.
echo hello #
rm file.ext #
mv /path/other.fl /path/bin #
The #
character introduces a comment to the end of the line in all standard shells (in non-interactive contexts). The comment will include the carriage return byte, which is a fine element of a comment, and then end immediately afterwards with the terminating line feed byte.
It's important that there be that space before the hash: a #
inside a word does not begin a comment, but is part of the word.
You could run this script directly with a shell:
bash cleanup.sh
dash cleanup.sh
sh cleanup.sh
But if you're going to launch it by typing a command from an existing shell session, those POSIX scripts mentioned earlier will also work: just make the file executable, and then
./cleanup.sh
will run it using whatever your shell considers the right thing to do for a POSIX script.
Since this sounds like a one-off it probably isn't worth the effort of making it executable, so just sh cleanup.sh
seems adequate to me.
My honest suggestion for this situation is probably Powershell (or batch at a push), but I understand it's not what you want. WSL is another option: it handles carriage returns in the shebang line automatically, and then you can use comments for the rest.
add a comment |
This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.
A standalone executable script will have a shebang line that identifies the interpreter to use:
#!/bin/sh
The problem is that, regardless of the interpreter, the shebang line itself will contain a carriage return character before the end, meaning that the interpreter won't be found (barring the unlikely executable name of literally
$'shr'
- which I think is illegal on Windows).
The other kind of executable script is a plain text file with the execute bit set, which POSIX requires to be interpreted as a script in the POSIX shell command language (when invoked from a compliant shell itself). This shell language, however, as you've found, treats carriage returns as data bytes, so you have the issue you've identified.
You have some options. One is to forego an actual executable script directly, and simply to invoke an interpreter for some other language first. You've identified Perl and Python, and in fact most scripting languages are happy with any contemporary line-ending format. Invoking the script as perl cleanup.pl
will not be a problem.
Many administrative tasks are much easier in a conventional shell language, however, and there is one more trick: end every line with a comment.
echo hello #
rm file.ext #
mv /path/other.fl /path/bin #
The #
character introduces a comment to the end of the line in all standard shells (in non-interactive contexts). The comment will include the carriage return byte, which is a fine element of a comment, and then end immediately afterwards with the terminating line feed byte.
It's important that there be that space before the hash: a #
inside a word does not begin a comment, but is part of the word.
You could run this script directly with a shell:
bash cleanup.sh
dash cleanup.sh
sh cleanup.sh
But if you're going to launch it by typing a command from an existing shell session, those POSIX scripts mentioned earlier will also work: just make the file executable, and then
./cleanup.sh
will run it using whatever your shell considers the right thing to do for a POSIX script.
Since this sounds like a one-off it probably isn't worth the effort of making it executable, so just sh cleanup.sh
seems adequate to me.
My honest suggestion for this situation is probably Powershell (or batch at a push), but I understand it's not what you want. WSL is another option: it handles carriage returns in the shebang line automatically, and then you can use comments for the rest.
add a comment |
This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.
A standalone executable script will have a shebang line that identifies the interpreter to use:
#!/bin/sh
The problem is that, regardless of the interpreter, the shebang line itself will contain a carriage return character before the end, meaning that the interpreter won't be found (barring the unlikely executable name of literally
$'shr'
- which I think is illegal on Windows).
The other kind of executable script is a plain text file with the execute bit set, which POSIX requires to be interpreted as a script in the POSIX shell command language (when invoked from a compliant shell itself). This shell language, however, as you've found, treats carriage returns as data bytes, so you have the issue you've identified.
You have some options. One is to forego an actual executable script directly, and simply to invoke an interpreter for some other language first. You've identified Perl and Python, and in fact most scripting languages are happy with any contemporary line-ending format. Invoking the script as perl cleanup.pl
will not be a problem.
Many administrative tasks are much easier in a conventional shell language, however, and there is one more trick: end every line with a comment.
echo hello #
rm file.ext #
mv /path/other.fl /path/bin #
The #
character introduces a comment to the end of the line in all standard shells (in non-interactive contexts). The comment will include the carriage return byte, which is a fine element of a comment, and then end immediately afterwards with the terminating line feed byte.
It's important that there be that space before the hash: a #
inside a word does not begin a comment, but is part of the word.
You could run this script directly with a shell:
bash cleanup.sh
dash cleanup.sh
sh cleanup.sh
But if you're going to launch it by typing a command from an existing shell session, those POSIX scripts mentioned earlier will also work: just make the file executable, and then
./cleanup.sh
will run it using whatever your shell considers the right thing to do for a POSIX script.
Since this sounds like a one-off it probably isn't worth the effort of making it executable, so just sh cleanup.sh
seems adequate to me.
My honest suggestion for this situation is probably Powershell (or batch at a push), but I understand it's not what you want. WSL is another option: it handles carriage returns in the shebang line automatically, and then you can use comments for the rest.
This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.
A standalone executable script will have a shebang line that identifies the interpreter to use:
#!/bin/sh
The problem is that, regardless of the interpreter, the shebang line itself will contain a carriage return character before the end, meaning that the interpreter won't be found (barring the unlikely executable name of literally
$'shr'
- which I think is illegal on Windows).
The other kind of executable script is a plain text file with the execute bit set, which POSIX requires to be interpreted as a script in the POSIX shell command language (when invoked from a compliant shell itself). This shell language, however, as you've found, treats carriage returns as data bytes, so you have the issue you've identified.
You have some options. One is to forego an actual executable script directly, and simply to invoke an interpreter for some other language first. You've identified Perl and Python, and in fact most scripting languages are happy with any contemporary line-ending format. Invoking the script as perl cleanup.pl
will not be a problem.
Many administrative tasks are much easier in a conventional shell language, however, and there is one more trick: end every line with a comment.
echo hello #
rm file.ext #
mv /path/other.fl /path/bin #
The #
character introduces a comment to the end of the line in all standard shells (in non-interactive contexts). The comment will include the carriage return byte, which is a fine element of a comment, and then end immediately afterwards with the terminating line feed byte.
It's important that there be that space before the hash: a #
inside a word does not begin a comment, but is part of the word.
You could run this script directly with a shell:
bash cleanup.sh
dash cleanup.sh
sh cleanup.sh
But if you're going to launch it by typing a command from an existing shell session, those POSIX scripts mentioned earlier will also work: just make the file executable, and then
./cleanup.sh
will run it using whatever your shell considers the right thing to do for a POSIX script.
Since this sounds like a one-off it probably isn't worth the effort of making it executable, so just sh cleanup.sh
seems adequate to me.
My honest suggestion for this situation is probably Powershell (or batch at a push), but I understand it's not what you want. WSL is another option: it handles carriage returns in the shebang line automatically, and then you can use comments for the rest.
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Homer
45.7k8121160
45.7k8121160
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f491688%2fshells-with-the-ability-to-treat-r-as-a-whitespace-character%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
Anything against
dos2unix
or plain oldsed
?– Rui F Ribeiro
2 hours ago
I'd like the script to be able to "just run" without the line endings being fixed up first. There are some languages/programs like
python
andperl
that are line-ending insensitive.– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago
Do you want a shebang line for a script that will run in such a shell, or just identifying a suitable shell that could be invoked directly?
– Michael Homer
2 hours ago
@MichaelHomer Both of those options are totally fine. As far as I can tell,
bash
itself can't be configured to processr
differently.– Gregory Nisbet
2 hours ago