On 04/09/19 21:42, L A Walsh wrote: > > > On 2019/09/03 18:51, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> Yes we could be better here. >> Attached is a fairly simple improvement: >> >> $ time seq.new 1 1 1e8 >/dev/null >> real 0m1.516s >> >> $ time seq.new 1 2 1e8 >/dev/null >> real 0m0.834s >> >> $ time seq.orig 1 2 1e8 >/dev/null >> real 0m40.435s >> >> It might be improved further with BCD addition of the step string, >> but this should be good for now. > --- > Thanks, um, do you know what the time would have been > on your machine of the original, non-explicit case, i.e.: > > time seq.new 1e8 >/dev/null
`seq 1e8` is treated the same as `seq 1 1 1e8` on both old and new code. I.E. a step of 1 was treated specially, even if specified. I'll push this later. Marking as done. cheers, Pádraig
