How do I align columns at common elements but give differing elements their own rows?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am using paste
to merge three text files (which do not require sorting) into a single document with three columns.
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt
I'd like elements that the columns have in common to occupy the same row without sharing it with non-matching elements (which they currently do).
By the same token, unique elements should have their own rows. The elements in each column should preserve their original order.
Here's a simple example.
Input
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 4 4
5 5 5
1 1 2
3 3 3
Desired Output
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Here's a more complicated example.
Input
000 000 000
002 002 001
006 006 006
008 008 007
009 009 009
011 012 010
013 013 013
015 015 014
016 016 016
018 019 017
020 020 020
021 021 022
024 024 024
026 025 025
028 026 026
118 028 027
119 118 118
032 119 117
036 032 032
037 033 033
039 034 034
040 037 037
042 039 038
043 040 040
045 042 041
046 043 043
048 045 044
046 046
049 047
Desired Output
000 000 000
001
002 002
006 006 006
007
008 008
009 009 009
010
011
012
013 013 013
014
015 015
016 016 016
017
018
019
020 020 020
021 021
022
024 024 024
025 025
026 026 026
027
028 028
118 118 118
117
119 119
032 032 032
033 033
034 034
036
037 037 037
038
039 039
040 040 040
041
042 042
043 043 043
044
045 045
046 046 046
047
048
049
Ideally, I'd like to use tools that are built in to Linux/Unix. I'd also like the output to remain a single document with three columns, e.g., > whatever.csv
.
The closest I've been able to get is to run sdiff
on the original text files, but although that correctly aligns elements that the files share in common, it does not handle the differences as I would like.
linux text-formatting columns paste
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am using paste
to merge three text files (which do not require sorting) into a single document with three columns.
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt
I'd like elements that the columns have in common to occupy the same row without sharing it with non-matching elements (which they currently do).
By the same token, unique elements should have their own rows. The elements in each column should preserve their original order.
Here's a simple example.
Input
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 4 4
5 5 5
1 1 2
3 3 3
Desired Output
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Here's a more complicated example.
Input
000 000 000
002 002 001
006 006 006
008 008 007
009 009 009
011 012 010
013 013 013
015 015 014
016 016 016
018 019 017
020 020 020
021 021 022
024 024 024
026 025 025
028 026 026
118 028 027
119 118 118
032 119 117
036 032 032
037 033 033
039 034 034
040 037 037
042 039 038
043 040 040
045 042 041
046 043 043
048 045 044
046 046
049 047
Desired Output
000 000 000
001
002 002
006 006 006
007
008 008
009 009 009
010
011
012
013 013 013
014
015 015
016 016 016
017
018
019
020 020 020
021 021
022
024 024 024
025 025
026 026 026
027
028 028
118 118 118
117
119 119
032 032 032
033 033
034 034
036
037 037 037
038
039 039
040 040 040
041
042 042
043 043 043
044
045 045
046 046 046
047
048
049
Ideally, I'd like to use tools that are built in to Linux/Unix. I'd also like the output to remain a single document with three columns, e.g., > whatever.csv
.
The closest I've been able to get is to run sdiff
on the original text files, but although that correctly aligns elements that the files share in common, it does not handle the differences as I would like.
linux text-formatting columns paste
New contributor
You say that the original files do not require sorting. Would it be okay to sort them, individually?
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 18:11
It would be all right as long as each file/column retains its original order.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 18:17
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am using paste
to merge three text files (which do not require sorting) into a single document with three columns.
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt
I'd like elements that the columns have in common to occupy the same row without sharing it with non-matching elements (which they currently do).
By the same token, unique elements should have their own rows. The elements in each column should preserve their original order.
Here's a simple example.
Input
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 4 4
5 5 5
1 1 2
3 3 3
Desired Output
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Here's a more complicated example.
Input
000 000 000
002 002 001
006 006 006
008 008 007
009 009 009
011 012 010
013 013 013
015 015 014
016 016 016
018 019 017
020 020 020
021 021 022
024 024 024
026 025 025
028 026 026
118 028 027
119 118 118
032 119 117
036 032 032
037 033 033
039 034 034
040 037 037
042 039 038
043 040 040
045 042 041
046 043 043
048 045 044
046 046
049 047
Desired Output
000 000 000
001
002 002
006 006 006
007
008 008
009 009 009
010
011
012
013 013 013
014
015 015
016 016 016
017
018
019
020 020 020
021 021
022
024 024 024
025 025
026 026 026
027
028 028
118 118 118
117
119 119
032 032 032
033 033
034 034
036
037 037 037
038
039 039
040 040 040
041
042 042
043 043 043
044
045 045
046 046 046
047
048
049
Ideally, I'd like to use tools that are built in to Linux/Unix. I'd also like the output to remain a single document with three columns, e.g., > whatever.csv
.
The closest I've been able to get is to run sdiff
on the original text files, but although that correctly aligns elements that the files share in common, it does not handle the differences as I would like.
linux text-formatting columns paste
New contributor
I am using paste
to merge three text files (which do not require sorting) into a single document with three columns.
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt
I'd like elements that the columns have in common to occupy the same row without sharing it with non-matching elements (which they currently do).
By the same token, unique elements should have their own rows. The elements in each column should preserve their original order.
Here's a simple example.
Input
1 1 1
2 2 2
3 4 4
5 5 5
1 1 2
3 3 3
Desired Output
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Here's a more complicated example.
Input
000 000 000
002 002 001
006 006 006
008 008 007
009 009 009
011 012 010
013 013 013
015 015 014
016 016 016
018 019 017
020 020 020
021 021 022
024 024 024
026 025 025
028 026 026
118 028 027
119 118 118
032 119 117
036 032 032
037 033 033
039 034 034
040 037 037
042 039 038
043 040 040
045 042 041
046 043 043
048 045 044
046 046
049 047
Desired Output
000 000 000
001
002 002
006 006 006
007
008 008
009 009 009
010
011
012
013 013 013
014
015 015
016 016 016
017
018
019
020 020 020
021 021
022
024 024 024
025 025
026 026 026
027
028 028
118 118 118
117
119 119
032 032 032
033 033
034 034
036
037 037 037
038
039 039
040 040 040
041
042 042
043 043 043
044
045 045
046 046 046
047
048
049
Ideally, I'd like to use tools that are built in to Linux/Unix. I'd also like the output to remain a single document with three columns, e.g., > whatever.csv
.
The closest I've been able to get is to run sdiff
on the original text files, but although that correctly aligns elements that the files share in common, it does not handle the differences as I would like.
linux text-formatting columns paste
linux text-formatting columns paste
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
New contributor
asked Dec 5 at 18:03
MilesO'Brien
63
63
New contributor
New contributor
You say that the original files do not require sorting. Would it be okay to sort them, individually?
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 18:11
It would be all right as long as each file/column retains its original order.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 18:17
add a comment |
You say that the original files do not require sorting. Would it be okay to sort them, individually?
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 18:11
It would be all right as long as each file/column retains its original order.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 18:17
You say that the original files do not require sorting. Would it be okay to sort them, individually?
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 18:11
You say that the original files do not require sorting. Would it be okay to sort them, individually?
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 18:11
It would be all right as long as each file/column retains its original order.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 18:17
It would be all right as long as each file/column retains its original order.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 18:17
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
BEGIN {
# We assume the default input field separator (changeable with "-F")
# Output will be tab delimited.
OFS = "t"
}
{
# The number of output records that this input record results in.
k=0
# "seen" records which new record a field should be part of.
# There may be NF new records for each input record if all
# fields are unique.
delete seen
# "a" holds all data for the new output records.
# It's basically a 2-dimensional NFxNF matrix
# encodod in a 1-dimensional array.
delete a
# Iterate over the fields
for (i=1; i<=NF; ++i) {
if (!seen[$i]) {
# This data has not been seen before (in this input record),
# assign it to the next output line.
seen[$i] = ++k
}
# Assign the input field to the right spot
a[(seen[$i]-1)*NF + i] = $i
}
# Save NF as this is reset by emptying $0 later.
nf = NF
# Create and output new lines
for (j = 1; j<=k; ++j) {
$0 = ""
# Create new output record
for (i = 1; i<=nf; ++i)
$i = a[(j-1)*nf + i]
# Output record
print
}
}
Testing on the given data:
$ awk -f script.awk file
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Testing on other data:
$ cat file
a b c e
1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
$ awk -f script.awk file
a
b
c
e
1 1 1
2
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
2
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
Here's a "brute force" solution in a shell script using paste
and read
.
#!/bin/sh
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt |
while read -r a b c; do
if [ "$a" = "$b" ] && [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%st%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$b" ]; then
printf '%st%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%stt%snt%sn' "$a" "$c" "$b"
elif [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%snt%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
else
printf '%snt%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
fi
done
There's probably a more elegant solution but I couldn't come up with a good one off the top of my head.
You could probably use awk
instead if you prefer it -- I think the result would look very similar. (One advantage of using awk
would be that it could potentially do the job of paste
at the same time, if that's useful to you.)
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
BEGIN {
# We assume the default input field separator (changeable with "-F")
# Output will be tab delimited.
OFS = "t"
}
{
# The number of output records that this input record results in.
k=0
# "seen" records which new record a field should be part of.
# There may be NF new records for each input record if all
# fields are unique.
delete seen
# "a" holds all data for the new output records.
# It's basically a 2-dimensional NFxNF matrix
# encodod in a 1-dimensional array.
delete a
# Iterate over the fields
for (i=1; i<=NF; ++i) {
if (!seen[$i]) {
# This data has not been seen before (in this input record),
# assign it to the next output line.
seen[$i] = ++k
}
# Assign the input field to the right spot
a[(seen[$i]-1)*NF + i] = $i
}
# Save NF as this is reset by emptying $0 later.
nf = NF
# Create and output new lines
for (j = 1; j<=k; ++j) {
$0 = ""
# Create new output record
for (i = 1; i<=nf; ++i)
$i = a[(j-1)*nf + i]
# Output record
print
}
}
Testing on the given data:
$ awk -f script.awk file
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Testing on other data:
$ cat file
a b c e
1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
$ awk -f script.awk file
a
b
c
e
1 1 1
2
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
2
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
BEGIN {
# We assume the default input field separator (changeable with "-F")
# Output will be tab delimited.
OFS = "t"
}
{
# The number of output records that this input record results in.
k=0
# "seen" records which new record a field should be part of.
# There may be NF new records for each input record if all
# fields are unique.
delete seen
# "a" holds all data for the new output records.
# It's basically a 2-dimensional NFxNF matrix
# encodod in a 1-dimensional array.
delete a
# Iterate over the fields
for (i=1; i<=NF; ++i) {
if (!seen[$i]) {
# This data has not been seen before (in this input record),
# assign it to the next output line.
seen[$i] = ++k
}
# Assign the input field to the right spot
a[(seen[$i]-1)*NF + i] = $i
}
# Save NF as this is reset by emptying $0 later.
nf = NF
# Create and output new lines
for (j = 1; j<=k; ++j) {
$0 = ""
# Create new output record
for (i = 1; i<=nf; ++i)
$i = a[(j-1)*nf + i]
# Output record
print
}
}
Testing on the given data:
$ awk -f script.awk file
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Testing on other data:
$ cat file
a b c e
1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
$ awk -f script.awk file
a
b
c
e
1 1 1
2
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
2
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
BEGIN {
# We assume the default input field separator (changeable with "-F")
# Output will be tab delimited.
OFS = "t"
}
{
# The number of output records that this input record results in.
k=0
# "seen" records which new record a field should be part of.
# There may be NF new records for each input record if all
# fields are unique.
delete seen
# "a" holds all data for the new output records.
# It's basically a 2-dimensional NFxNF matrix
# encodod in a 1-dimensional array.
delete a
# Iterate over the fields
for (i=1; i<=NF; ++i) {
if (!seen[$i]) {
# This data has not been seen before (in this input record),
# assign it to the next output line.
seen[$i] = ++k
}
# Assign the input field to the right spot
a[(seen[$i]-1)*NF + i] = $i
}
# Save NF as this is reset by emptying $0 later.
nf = NF
# Create and output new lines
for (j = 1; j<=k; ++j) {
$0 = ""
# Create new output record
for (i = 1; i<=nf; ++i)
$i = a[(j-1)*nf + i]
# Output record
print
}
}
Testing on the given data:
$ awk -f script.awk file
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Testing on other data:
$ cat file
a b c e
1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
$ awk -f script.awk file
a
b
c
e
1 1 1
2
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
2
BEGIN {
# We assume the default input field separator (changeable with "-F")
# Output will be tab delimited.
OFS = "t"
}
{
# The number of output records that this input record results in.
k=0
# "seen" records which new record a field should be part of.
# There may be NF new records for each input record if all
# fields are unique.
delete seen
# "a" holds all data for the new output records.
# It's basically a 2-dimensional NFxNF matrix
# encodod in a 1-dimensional array.
delete a
# Iterate over the fields
for (i=1; i<=NF; ++i) {
if (!seen[$i]) {
# This data has not been seen before (in this input record),
# assign it to the next output line.
seen[$i] = ++k
}
# Assign the input field to the right spot
a[(seen[$i]-1)*NF + i] = $i
}
# Save NF as this is reset by emptying $0 later.
nf = NF
# Create and output new lines
for (j = 1; j<=k; ++j) {
$0 = ""
# Create new output record
for (i = 1; i<=nf; ++i)
$i = a[(j-1)*nf + i]
# Output record
print
}
}
Testing on the given data:
$ awk -f script.awk file
1 1 1
2 2 2
3
4 4
5 5 5
1 1
2
3 3 3
Testing on other data:
$ cat file
a b c e
1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1
1 1 1 2
$ awk -f script.awk file
a
b
c
e
1 1 1
2
2
1 1 1
1 1 1
2
edited Dec 5 at 19:08
answered Dec 5 at 19:02
Kusalananda
119k16223364
119k16223364
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
This works on my example and on most of my data; consequently, it is the answer. It does not work with some data, doubtless because I have made an assumption of some kind. When I work out what that is, it is probably better to ask a new question that to edit the original post.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 19:49
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
@MilesO'Brien It's either the handling of the input data, or your interpretation of the output data. It would be interesting to see a lite of data that you believe it does not handle.
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 21:08
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
To be clear, your script does what I described in the OP on all data that I feed it. It's just that I erred in my assumptions about the data and how to handle it. Now, I'm unsure whether I should start a new thread or add to the OP.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 22:18
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
I have updated the OP with a more complicated example. On reflection, I have decided that the way in which I worded the OP is compatible with both examples.
– MilesO'Brien
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
@MilesO'Brien Ah, so it's the order in which the new lines are added that is wrong, I get it. I will mull over this for a while and make a change later today (I'm a bit busy with other work ATM).
– Kusalananda
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
0
down vote
Here's a "brute force" solution in a shell script using paste
and read
.
#!/bin/sh
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt |
while read -r a b c; do
if [ "$a" = "$b" ] && [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%st%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$b" ]; then
printf '%st%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%stt%snt%sn' "$a" "$c" "$b"
elif [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%snt%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
else
printf '%snt%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
fi
done
There's probably a more elegant solution but I couldn't come up with a good one off the top of my head.
You could probably use awk
instead if you prefer it -- I think the result would look very similar. (One advantage of using awk
would be that it could potentially do the job of paste
at the same time, if that's useful to you.)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Here's a "brute force" solution in a shell script using paste
and read
.
#!/bin/sh
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt |
while read -r a b c; do
if [ "$a" = "$b" ] && [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%st%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$b" ]; then
printf '%st%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%stt%snt%sn' "$a" "$c" "$b"
elif [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%snt%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
else
printf '%snt%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
fi
done
There's probably a more elegant solution but I couldn't come up with a good one off the top of my head.
You could probably use awk
instead if you prefer it -- I think the result would look very similar. (One advantage of using awk
would be that it could potentially do the job of paste
at the same time, if that's useful to you.)
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Here's a "brute force" solution in a shell script using paste
and read
.
#!/bin/sh
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt |
while read -r a b c; do
if [ "$a" = "$b" ] && [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%st%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$b" ]; then
printf '%st%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%stt%snt%sn' "$a" "$c" "$b"
elif [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%snt%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
else
printf '%snt%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
fi
done
There's probably a more elegant solution but I couldn't come up with a good one off the top of my head.
You could probably use awk
instead if you prefer it -- I think the result would look very similar. (One advantage of using awk
would be that it could potentially do the job of paste
at the same time, if that's useful to you.)
Here's a "brute force" solution in a shell script using paste
and read
.
#!/bin/sh
paste a.txt b.txt c.txt |
while read -r a b c; do
if [ "$a" = "$b" ] && [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%st%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$b" ]; then
printf '%st%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
elif [ "$a" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%stt%snt%sn' "$a" "$c" "$b"
elif [ "$b" = "$c" ]; then
printf '%snt%st%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
else
printf '%snt%sntt%sn' "$a" "$b" "$c"
fi
done
There's probably a more elegant solution but I couldn't come up with a good one off the top of my head.
You could probably use awk
instead if you prefer it -- I think the result would look very similar. (One advantage of using awk
would be that it could potentially do the job of paste
at the same time, if that's useful to you.)
answered Dec 5 at 18:32
Daniel Pryden
1215
1215
add a comment |
add a comment |
MilesO'Brien is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
MilesO'Brien is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
MilesO'Brien is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
MilesO'Brien is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2f486207%2fhow-do-i-align-columns-at-common-elements-but-give-differing-elements-their-own%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
You say that the original files do not require sorting. Would it be okay to sort them, individually?
– Kusalananda
Dec 5 at 18:11
It would be all right as long as each file/column retains its original order.
– MilesO'Brien
Dec 5 at 18:17