On 04/14/2016 06:47 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > The 2 patches look good.
thanks for the review, pushed. > On 14/04/16 17:37, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >>>> seq 1 .0000000000000000000000000000001 1 >> I consider this a bug in seq: from mathematical point of view, the above >> should just output "1" and then exit, because after adding that tiny number >> the next number would be greater than LAST. > > right > >> IMO we should enhance seq_fast() to do all the Math when no special >> output format is given. >> WDYT? > > It would be good to expand seq_fast to more cases. I'll try to come up with something (which may take some time). Have a nice day, Berny
