Does it possible combine bash and awk script files?

First of all, if you're writing bash don't use! /bin/sh that will put you in compatibility mode which is only necessarly if you're writing for portability (and then you have to adhere to the POSIX normative).

First of all, if you're writing bash don't use #! /bin/sh that will put you in compatibility mode which is only necessarly if you're writing for portability (and then you have to adhere to the POSIX normative). Now regarding your question you just have to run awk from inside your bash script, like this: #!

/bin/bash var1=$1 awk -f myawk. Sh also you should use . Awk as extension I guess.

Bash and awk are different languages, each with their own interpreter of the same name. The tiny sample you show is stripped down too far to make much sense: You've marked both files as shell scripts; one using the shebang #! /bin/sh and the other using the extension .sh.

Obviously the shell can read shell script, and the command to do so is called . In Bourne shell (or source in csh and bash). The shell script assigns a variable, but you're not using it anywhere.

Did you mean passing it on to the awk script? Both the awk and shell script use $1, which has different meanings for them (in bash, it's from the command line or a set command; in awk, it's from a parsed input line). The two tools are often used in tandem, as the shell is better at combining separate programs and awk is better at reformatting tabular or structured text.It was so common that a whole language evolved to combine the tasks; Perl's roots are as a combination of shell, awk and sed.

If you just wanted to pass a variable from the shell script into an awk script, use -v. The man page is your friend.

. Only means for current directory, you can run any script/program using absolute path – user710818 Dec 18 at 13:06 1 Don't confuse the command . With the directory .

; neither actually means current directory! You'll find the command . Accepts any path, and the directory .

Exists in any directory; but pathnames that don't start with a / will start from the current directory, so . Actually refers to the current directory from within itself. – Yann Vernier Dec 18 at 13:08 Dot .

Always means current directory, if you run ls -la: you will receive: . For current directory, and .. for the up directory. This is simple observation.

– user710818 Dec 18 at 13:12 1 No, . Means the containing directory. Try ls -di .

$PWD .. ../. /. / and compare the inode numbers.

There's a . Everywhere. – Yann Vernier Dec 18 at 13:16 As an aside, MS-DOS doesn't actually have Unix-style .

Or .. but emulates them; it also has the notion of a current working directory per device. Things look quite a bit different then. – Yann Vernier Dec 18 at 13:34.

Or, many ppl do sth like this: #! /bin/env bash #Bash things start ... var1=$1 #Bash things stop #Awk things start, #may use pipes or variable to interact with bash awk -v V1=var1 ' #AWK program, can even include awk scripts here. ' #Bash things I suggest this page here by Bruce Barnett: grymoire.com/Unix/Awk.html#uh-3 You can also use double quote to make use of shell's extract feature but it is confusing.

Personally I just try to avoid those fancy gnu additions of bash or awk and make my scripts ksh+(n)awk compatible.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.