On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:52 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> Nonetheless I think it should be changed to 10q on the harmful
> website, because that's the correct replacement. But, I agree that
> it is only a detail, actually.
Part of the whole point is that the number before the q can be
whatever th
[2010-04-12 13:30] Szabolcs Nagy
> On 4/12/10, Uriel wrote:
> > What is your question?
>
> he just pointed out that 'sed 11q' incorrectly listed as an alternative
> to 'head' on cat-v (the correct alternative would be 'sed 10q')
Correct.
Thanks to all who replied. Now I understand, why one mig
Don't trouble your head about it, sed 11q is just exemplary usage.
On 4/12/10, Uriel wrote:
> What is your question?
he just pointed out that 'sed 11q' incorrectly listed as an alternative
to 'head' on cat-v (the correct alternative would be 'sed 10q')
but it's a minor detail..
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:10 PM, markus schnalke wrote:
> We don't need head(1) because we have sed(1). But do we get the first
> ten lines with
> sed 10q
> or with
> sed 11q
> ?
>
> I am a bit confused, currently.
>
> All sed implementation I had access to printed 10 lines with 10q.
http://www.plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Unix_to_Plan_9_command_translation/index.html
head = sed 10q
On 11 April 2010 22:00, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 4/11/10, markus schnalke wrote:
>> Now I actually must assume, Uriel might be wrong. *eek*
>>
>> But is this possible?
>
> yes
>
>
Or perhaps 11 is more convenient to type than 10...
On 4/11/10, markus schnalke wrote:
> Now I actually must assume, Uriel might be wrong. *eek*
>
> But is this possible?
yes
We don't need head(1) because we have sed(1). But do we get the first
ten lines with
sed 10q
or with
sed 11q
?
I am a bit confused, currently.
All sed implementation I had access to printed 10 lines with 10q. It
were from:
- GNU
- Heirloom (sv3, s42, posix, posix2001)
- SunOS (/us
