[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: best log checker

On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:15:32PM +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca>:
> >  On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:55:12AM +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> > > Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca>:
> > > 
> >  Why doesn't someone make a companion interactive rule maker?  Run it in
>    i)  This is free software.  Go right ahead.  :-)  Some of the
>        neatest stuff came into being because someone felt an itch they
>        couldn't scratch.  It's probably a very difficult problem to
>        solve, though.
>   ii)  Unix-ish OSs have a steep learning curve.  The curve pays off
>        with extraordinary power.
> Regular expressions aren't difficult to master.  The biggest problem
> I've found with them is subsets of them.  Shell RE's, perl RE's, awk,
> ...  Some work in all of them, some work in only one of them, some
> work differently in each.  It can be confusing, but it's really not
> that hard.


Even on my 486, my brute-force log checker completes in under a minute.
It may be worth it if RE would save an hour or so.

I still have trouble with conditional stuff (like if) in bash.  I use
bash scripting like dos .bat files.  If (so to speak) I need
conditionals, I switch to python.  I don't like languages where having
two spaces instead of one (or none if beside a bracket) creates an
error.  Having a whole line consist of mostly punctuation (like your RE
example) makes me think my printer is on the fritz.


Reply to: