Replace mixed escape sequences, control characters and literals with Sed? - sed

I have a weird mix of literal, visible and escaped control characters in a data dump that I need to clean (preferably with sed), for example ^A, ^B, \N (literally), and visible newlines. I need to clean the file such that the visible newlines remain intact, replace every ^A with a tab character, and strip every ^B\N^B\N (which follows every unix time value in the data e.g. 13068505731812510).
This is what the contents look like using less in a shell command (in the shell, the ^A and ^B characters have a dark background to denote control chars):
^A guid ^A unix-time ^B\N^B\N^A 4 ^A 192.168.21.136 ^A 7.0 ^A IE ^A 8 ^A guid ^A WinNT ^A ... (visible newline)
Or a literal example...
... ^A40C4595C-0B9D-46B7-8214-3D9CE2B5F057^A13071154505579551^B\N^B\N^A4^A192.168.21.136^A7.0^AIE^A8^AE6979203-F58B-4D20-9D66-7F5369BF9E32^AWinXP^A ...
So far the escape sequences I've been feeding sed have not been producing the expected output. Does anyone know the magic escapes needed to make all this happen in as few passes as possible? (There are many gigs of files, and time counts.) Thanks! Bonus points if I can convert the unix time digits into human-readable times in the same pass.

Change ^A to tabs:
sed 's/\^A/'"$(printf '\011')"'/g'
Strip our ^B^N:
sed -e 's/\^B\\N\^B\\N//g'

Related

How to remove <96> from a .txt file

I receive a .txt file with a lot of <96> which should be space instead.
In vi, I have done:
:%s/<96>//g
or
:%s/\<96>\//g
but it is still there. I did dos2unix, but it still doesn't remove it. Is it Unicode? If yes, how can I remove it? Thank you!
There's a good chance those aren't the four literal characters <, 9, 6 and >. Instead, they're probably the single character formed by the byte 0x96, which Vim renders as <96>.
You can see that by executing (from bash):
printf '123\x96abc\x96def' > file.txt ; vi file.txt
and you should see:
123<96>abc<96>def
To get rid of them, you can just use sed with something like (assuming your sed has in-place replacement):
sed -i.save 's/\x96//g' file.txt
You can also do this within vim itself, you just have to realise that you can enter arbitrary characters with CTRL-V (or CTRL-Q if CTRL-V is set up for paste). See here for details, paraphrased and shortened here to ensure answer is self-contained:
It is possible to enter any character which can be displayed in your current encoding, if you know the character value, as follows (^V means CTRL-V, or CTRL-Q if you use CTRL-V to paste):
Decimal: ^Vnnn, 000..255.
Octal: ^Vonnn, 000..377.
Hex: ^Vxnn, 00..ff.
Hex, BMP Unicode: ^Vunnnn, 0000..FFFF.
Hex, any Unicode: ^VUnnnnnnnn, 00000000..7FFFFFFF.
In all cases, initial zeros may be omitted if the next character typed is not a digit in the given base (except, of course, that the value zero must be entered as at least one zero).
Hex digits A-F, when used, can be typed in upper or lower case, or even in any mixture of them.
The key sequence you therefore want (assuming you want them replaced with spaces) is:
:%s/<CTRL-V>x96/ /g

How to replace the same character in multiple text files?

So I have over 100 text files, all of which are over the size required to be opened in a normal text editor (eg; notepad, notepad++). Meaning I cannot use those mentioned.
All text files contain the same format, they contain:
abc0001:00000009a
abc0054:000000809a
abc00888:054450000009a
and so on..
I was wondering, how do I replace the ":" in each of those text files to then be "\n" (regex for new line)
So then it would be:
abc0001
00000009a
abc0054
000000809a
abc00888
054450000009a
How would I do this to all of the 100 text files, without doing this manually and individually. (if there's any way?)
Any help is appreciated.
You can use sed. The following does something similar to what you want. The question concerns Unix, but a lot of Unix utilities have been ported to MS Windows (even sed): http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/packages/sed.htm
UNIX: Replace Newline w/ Colon, Preserving Newline Before EOF
Something like (where you provide your text file as input, and the output becomes your new text file):
sed 's/:/\n/g'

BBEdit "Find" dialog vs. CR and LF

In BBEdit (v11.6), when I search for the "\r" character in a txt file previoulsy saved as "Unix (LF)" from the "Save as..." dialog, the result is the end of each individual line of the file.
Why?
The BBEdit hex dump correctly shows that no CR (OD) chars are present in the file.
From the 11.6 release notes:
BBEdit now uses the line feed (ASCII decimal 10) as line breaks in its internal representation for text in open documents, instead of the carriage return (ASCII decimal 13) that was the standard Mac format for many years. This (theoretically) reduces the time required to open documents, since in the normal case, no conversion is necessary; it also eliminates conversion logic when copying and pasting text, since LF-delimited text is also the standard interchange format on the Clipboard.
As before, you may use \n and \r interchangeably in search strings and Grep patterns. (The latter usage is for compatibility with old versions of BBEdit.)

How to use '^#' in Vim scripts?

I'm trying to work around a problem with using ^# (i.e., <ctrl-#>) characters in Vim scripts. I can insert them into a script, but when the script runs it seems the line is truncated at the point where a ^# was located.
My kludgy solution so far is to have a ^# stored in a variable, then reference the variable in the script whenever I would have quoted a literal ^#. Can someone tell me what's going on here? Is there a better way around this problem?
That is one reason why I never use raw special character values in scripts. While ^# does not work, string <C-#> in mappings works as expected, so you may use one of
nnoremap <C-#> {rhs}
nnoremap <Nul> {rhs}
It is strange, but you cannot use <Char-0x0> here. Some notes about null byte in strings:
Inserting null byte into string truncates it: vim uses old C-style strigs that end with null byte, thus it cannot appear in strings. These strings are very inefficient, so if you want to generate a very large text, try accumulating it into a list of lines (using setline is very fast as buffer is represented as a list of lines).
Most functions that return list of strings (like readfile, getline(start, end)) or take list of strings (like writefile, setline, append) treat \n (NL) as Null. It is also the internal representation of buffer lines, see :h NL-used-for-Nul.
If you try to insert \n character into the command-line, you will get Null shown (but this is really a newline). If you want to edit a file that has \n in a filename (it is possible on *nix), you will need to prepend newline with backslash.
The byte ctrl-# is also known as '\0'. Many languages, programs, etc. use it as an "end of string" marker, so it's not surprising that vim gets confused there. If you must use this byte in the middle of a script string, it sounds like your workaround is a decent one.

What is the difference between \r and \n?

How are \r and \n different? I think it has something to do with Unix vs. Windows vs. Mac, but I'm not sure exactly how they're different, and which to search for/match in regexes.
They're different characters. \r is carriage return, and \n is line feed.
On "old" printers, \r sent the print head back to the start of the line, and \n advanced the paper by one line. Both were therefore necessary to start printing on the next line.
Obviously that's somewhat irrelevant now, although depending on the console you may still be able to use \r to move to the start of the line and overwrite the existing text.
More importantly, Unix tends to use \n as a line separator; Windows tends to use \r\n as a line separator and Macs (up to OS 9) used to use \r as the line separator. (Mac OS X is Unix-y, so uses \n instead; there may be some compatibility situations where \r is used instead though.)
For more information, see the Wikipedia newline article.
EDIT: This is language-sensitive. In C# and Java, for example, \n always means Unicode U+000A, which is defined as line feed. In C and C++ the water is somewhat muddier, as the meaning is platform-specific. See comments for details.
In C and C++, \n is a concept, \r is a character, and \r\n is (almost always) a portability bug.
Think of an old teletype. The print head is positioned on some line and in some column. When you send a printable character to the teletype, it prints the character at the current position and moves the head to the next column. (This is conceptually the same as a typewriter, except that typewriters typically moved the paper with respect to the print head.)
When you wanted to finish the current line and start on the next line, you had to do two separate steps:
move the print head back to the beginning of the line, then
move it down to the next line.
ASCII encodes these actions as two distinct control characters:
\x0D (CR) moves the print head back to the beginning of the line. (Unicode encodes this as U+000D CARRIAGE RETURN.)
\x0A (LF) moves the print head down to the next line. (Unicode encodes this as U+000A LINE FEED.)
In the days of teletypes and early technology printers, people actually took advantage of the fact that these were two separate operations. By sending a CR without following it by a LF, you could print over the line you already printed. This allowed effects like accents, bold type, and underlining. Some systems overprinted several times to prevent passwords from being visible in hardcopy. On early serial CRT terminals, CR was one of the ways to control the cursor position in order to update text already on the screen.
But most of the time, you actually just wanted to go to the next line. Rather than requiring the pair of control characters, some systems allowed just one or the other. For example:
Unix variants (including modern versions of Mac) use just a LF character to indicate a newline.
Old (pre-OSX) Macintosh files used just a CR character to indicate a newline.
VMS, CP/M, DOS, Windows, and many network protocols still expect both: CR LF.
Old IBM systems that used EBCDIC standardized on NL--a character that doesn't even exist in the ASCII character set. In Unicode, NL is U+0085 NEXT LINE, but the actual EBCDIC value is 0x15.
Why did different systems choose different methods? Simply because there was no universal standard. Where your keyboard probably says "Enter", older keyboards used to say "Return", which was short for Carriage Return. In fact, on a serial terminal, pressing Return actually sends the CR character. If you were writing a text editor, it would be tempting to just use that character as it came in from the terminal. Perhaps that's why the older Macs used just CR.
Now that we have standards, there are more ways to represent line breaks. Although extremely rare in the wild, Unicode has new characters like:
U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR
U+2029 PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR
Even before Unicode came along, programmers wanted simple ways to represent some of the most useful control codes without worrying about the underlying character set. C has several escape sequences for representing control codes:
\a (for alert) which rings the teletype bell or makes the terminal beep
\f (for form feed) which moves to the beginning of the next page
\t (for tab) which moves the print head to the next horizontal tab position
(This list is intentionally incomplete.)
This mapping happens at compile-time--the compiler sees \a and puts whatever magic value is used to ring the bell.
Notice that most of these mnemonics have direct correlations to ASCII control codes. For example, \a would map to 0x07 BEL. A compiler could be written for a system that used something other than ASCII for the host character set (e.g., EBCDIC). Most of the control codes that had specific mnemonics could be mapped to control codes in other character sets.
Huzzah! Portability!
Well, almost. In C, I could write printf("\aHello, World!"); which rings the bell (or beeps) and outputs a message. But if I wanted to then print something on the next line, I'd still need to know what the host platform requires to move to the next line of output. CR LF? CR? LF? NL? Something else? So much for portability.
C has two modes for I/O: binary and text. In binary mode, whatever data is sent gets transmitted as-is. But in text mode, there's a run-time translation that converts a special character to whatever the host platform needs for a new line (and vice versa).
Great, so what's the special character?
Well, that's implementation dependent, too, but there's an implementation-independent way to specify it: \n. It's typically called the "newline character".
This is a subtle but important point: \n is mapped at compile time to an implementation-defined character value which (in text mode) is then mapped again at run time to the actual character (or sequence of characters) required by the underlying platform to move to the next line.
\n is different than all the other backslash literals because there are two mappings involved. This two-step mapping makes \n significantly different than even \r, which is simply a compile-time mapping to CR (or the most similar control code in whatever the underlying character set is).
This trips up many C and C++ programmers. If you were to poll 100 of them, at least 99 will tell you that \n means line feed. This is not entirely true. Most (perhaps all) C and C++ implementations use LF as the magic intermediate value for \n, but that's an implementation detail. It's feasible for a compiler to use a different value. In fact, if the host character set is not a superset of ASCII (e.g., if it's EBCDIC), then \n will almost certainly not be LF.
So, in C and C++:
\r is literally a carriage return.
\n is a magic value that gets translated (in text mode) at run-time to/from the host platform's newline semantics.
\r\n is almost always a portability bug. In text mode, this gets translated to CR followed by the platform's newline sequence--probably not what's intended. In binary mode, this gets translated to CR followed by some magic value that might not be LF--possibly not what's intended.
\x0A is the most portable way to indicate an ASCII LF, but you only want to do that in binary mode. Most text-mode implementations will treat that like \n.
"\r" => Return
"\n" => Newline or Linefeed
(semantics)
Unix based systems use just a "\n" to end a line of text.
Dos uses "\r\n" to end a line of text.
Some other machines used just a "\r". (Commodore, Apple II, Mac OS prior to OS X, etc..)
\r is used to point to the start of a line and can replace the text from there, e.g.
main()
{
printf("\nab");
printf("\bsi");
printf("\rha");
}
Produces this output:
hai
\n is for new line.
In short \r has ASCII value 13 (CR) and \n has ASCII value 10 (LF).
Mac uses CR as line delimiter (at least, it did before, I am not sure for modern macs), *nix uses LF and Windows uses both (CRLF).
In addition to #Jon Skeet's answer:
Traditionally Windows has used \r\n, Unix \n and Mac \r, however newer Macs use \n as they're unix based.
\r is Carriage Return; \n is New Line (Line Feed) ... depends on the OS as to what each means. Read this article for more on the difference between '\n' and '\r\n' ... in C.
in C# I found they use \r\n in a string.
\r used for carriage return. (ASCII value is 13)
\n used for new line. (ASCII value is 10)