The operation is not to copy but to snarf. It's called snarf because snarf is what it does. There is no design document.
-rob On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kaps...@gmail.com> wrote: > Both 'Zerox' and 'Snarf' are there: > > /sys/src/cmd/acme/cols.c:34 > textinsert(t, 0, L"New Cut Paste Snarf Sort Zerox Delcol ", 38, TRUE); > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke <rtrli...@googlemail.com> > wrote: >> Hi Mateusz, >> >> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is >> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from. >> >> Cheers, >> Robby >> >> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some >> design decisions. >> >> Why there is a snarf buffer and not a copy buffer? >> >> As it might seem to be a dull question, it is not. I am very >> interested in the reason behind this decision. I've browsed >> numerous websites (including cat-v.org and the 9fans archives) >> but I wasn't able to find anything about it. >> >> I decided to ask this question [1] on Unix & Linux StackExchange >> but its community doesn't seem to know the answer. >> >> My guess is that "copying" is not as an atomic action. >> "Copying" is in fact: >> >> - obtaining the content you want to copy (_snarfing_) >> - inserting the content where you want it to be (_pasting_) >> >> Hence the use of snarf instead of copy. >> >> Am I right? Is there a document / book / article where >> it is explained? >> >> Cheers! >> >> Mateusz Piotrowski >> >> [1]: >> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan-9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy >
