Shells with the ability to treat `r` as a whitespace character












3














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".










share|improve this question






















  • Anything against dos2unix or plain old sed?
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    3 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
    3 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
















3














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".










share|improve this question






















  • Anything against dos2unix or plain old sed?
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    3 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
    3 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














3












3








3







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".










share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









Gregory Nisbet

1,3421019




1,3421019












  • Anything against dos2unix or plain old sed?
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    3 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
    3 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


















  • Anything against dos2unix or plain old sed?
    – Rui F Ribeiro
    3 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
    3 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
















Anything against dos2unix or plain old sed?
– Rui F Ribeiro
3 hours ago




Anything against dos2unix or plain old sed?
– Rui F Ribeiro
3 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
3 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
3 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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.





  1. 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).



  2. 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.






share|improve this answer





















    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    3














    This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.





    1. 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).



    2. 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.






    share|improve this answer


























      3














      This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.





      1. 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).



      2. 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.






      share|improve this answer
























        3












        3








        3






        This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.





        1. 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).



        2. 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.






        share|improve this answer












        This is, in general, not possible for an actual script.





        1. 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).



        2. 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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Michael Homer

        45.7k8121160




        45.7k8121160






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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

            404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

            How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

            TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'