[SOLVED] Split a file to multiple file using awk or perl

wje_lq · 02-28-2011, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quanta

@wje_lq: I mean the caret sign in ^No. in my code, not caret sign in form feed

Very good. :) That fixes it.

It does leave one question: what to do with the form feeds. fad216 didn't specify what he wanted done with those, but we can speculate that he might be reading the output data with another program, which might be confused by form feeds, so he might want to remove them.

kurumi leaves each form feed at the end of the file that precedes it.
makyo leaves each form feed at the beginning of the file that follows it.
So does Nominal Animal.
So does quanta (as revised).
wje_lq removes the form feed entirely.

At this point, fad216 can pick and choose.

fad216 · 03-01-2011, 12:05 AM

thanx everyone that reply for my problem...I have get solution from all of you...the solution from Nominal Animal, quanta and kurumi is produced same output that I want which is create new file each split data. The other solution using bash [makyo], clisp [wqe_lq], I don't know how to implement or maybe I don't have install clisp and bash. But I think everything is same output...thanks everyone

kurumi · 03-02-2011, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wje_lq

Yes. But beyond stating the version number, it's important, if you're reaching out to potential ruby users, to say that the version you use makes a difference.

then I would be very busy isn't it? I have to test my code for every version of Ruby to see if they fit all. So returning you the favor, did you test your clisp script for every version as well? And clisp? Its cool that not often you see people using clisp to do such tasks, but I myself find it esoteric, ugly and unreadable (no offense, this is just a personal 2 cents). Besides, i don't see many people using it for everyday sysadmin tasks...except for academic maybe?

Quote:

Even so, when I used ruby 1.9, the output files were named wrong. In the following run, the input file is named data.txt, and I do a precautionary removal of the output f* files at the beginning.

hey but OP says he has got the correct output...so ...