Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • (1) It seems unfortunate to use recursive code for a function that isn’t inherently recursive. (2) It seems unfortunate to use recursive code and not state in the text portion of your answer that you are using recursive code. (3) It seems unfortunate that you have followed TomRoche’s lead and written a loop, when the question does not appear to call for one. Commented Sep 2, 2020 at 0:43
  • 1
    Thanks for pointing out the recursion and correcting the oversight. The answer credits others while solving a problem that wasn't optimally solved by other (helpful) answers at the time. I shared to help others. It is up to a reader to select answers and review for appropriateness to their needs. This almost looks like an attack when all that was required was an alternative answer standing on its own merits or demerits. Was "It is unfortunate" read it as an offensive statement to re-use in triplicate? I've edited it out; it was not intended as an attack as much as an observation. Commented Sep 2, 2020 at 14:08
  • (1) Yes, my wording was snarky and belligerent.  I apologize.  (2) I still have an issue with the (IMO, unsupported) interpretation that b64decode is supposed to invoke target_utility (base64 --decode) with arguments, and that b64decode < file.txt is supposed to read file.txt one line at a time and invoke target_utility N times.  (3) As @Stéphane Chazelas pointed out in a comment on TomRoche’s answer, read should be IFS= read (to support input lines that begin with space or tab).  (4) Thank you for cleaning up Mohsen Banan’s answer. Commented Sep 3, 2020 at 3:31
  • 1
    The title of the question is what triggered the process of finding this Q/A for material that aided development of the above to solve a real life problem described by the title. The OP declared that base64 decode was not the "real" problem; pedantic constraint of answers to a particular "example" seems less helpful. When this question and its answers were key to helping solve real problems, alternate answers can be gifts to the community in recognition of the fact that many more people will use this Q/A to solve problems. Since the answer is on-topic per the title, I feel it is "game on". Commented Sep 3, 2020 at 17:30
  • 1
    More boiler-plate added to the answer, but the value of what really seems to be nitpicking seems questionable even if there is also value in a judicious hunt for theoretical ideals. In the end, this site is about helping community. All the associated answers and comments are available for a visitor to peruse and consider. It is decidedly less valuable to the community when all answers are identical. If one had to deal with the drain of such critique for every answer, perhaps site usage would go down. People have lives to lead and the OP is apparently already happy. IMO, it is time to move on. Commented Sep 3, 2020 at 17:48