Date:Wed, 4 Oct 2017 06:15:20 -0500 (CDT)
From:"Jeremy C. Reed"
Message-ID:
| I put the README, source, and SCCS files here:
| https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/reed/tac/local/
In that version of tac.c I notice this wonderful example of C code ...
if f
On 10/04/2017 07:54 AM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
I forgot to mention that I normally use "tail -r" which is in v7:
What I want to see is the implementation of "tail -rf".
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
http://www.NetBSD.org/ IM:da...@vex.net
I forgot to mention that I normally use "tail -r" which is in v7:
* Type 'r' means in lines in reverse order from end
* (for -r, default is entire buffer )
tail is not in v6. The 32V version and its fork 3BSD had tail but did
not have the -r feature.
4.0BSD did have it (Nov 10 1980
I have multiple copies of it. It is in 4.3BSD and 4.3BSD-Tahoe. I also
purchased the CD sets from McKusick. The oldest copy I have is dated
June 5, 1986 from 4.3's /usr/contrib/tac/
I put the README, source, and SCCS files here:
https://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/reed/tac/local/
I export th
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 03:22:24PM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
> > It appears tac was written by some unknown person, then rewritten
> > by the late Jay Lepreau of the University of Utah in 1985 and sent
> > to CSRG for inclusion on the "contrib" tape of 4.3BSD, but may or
> > may not have shippe
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> It appears tac was written by some unknown person, then rewritten
> by the late Jay Lepreau of the University of Utah in 1985 and sent
> to CSRG for inclusion on the "contrib" tape of 4.3BSD, but may or
> may not have shipped with 4.3 -- I can't find the "contrib" sour
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 06:50:35PM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:04:41AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> > ps: the tac in gnu coreutils is by no means "original" - the tac command
> > way predates GNU - I forget who created it initially, but the real original
> > (non GPL'd
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 04:04:41AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> ps: the tac in gnu coreutils is by no means "original" - the tac command
> way predates GNU - I forget who created it initially, but the real original
> (non GPL'd) version could probably be found if there was a good reason
> for tha
On 01.10.2017 23:04, Robert Elz wrote:
> ps: the tac in gnu coreutils is by no means "original" - the tac command
> way predates GNU - I forget who created it initially, but the real original
> (non GPL'd) version could probably be found if there was a good reason
> for that.
>
I see, so if this
Date:Sun, 1 Oct 2017 22:03:10 +0200
From:Kamil Rytarowski
Message-ID: <8ec01cd2-20b8-8c32-5e7f-fd2f8b044...@gmx.com>
| What are the immediate users of this command? Is something broken? Are
| we in need of patching something? Does it solve some problem that "tail
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 10:03:10PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> > So do I, I used to have a tac command, and I miss it.
>
> What are the immediate users of this command? Is something broken? Are
> we in need of patching something? Does it solve some problem that "tail
> -r" cannot solve?
On 01.10.2017 20:34, Robert Elz wrote:
> So do I, I used to have a tac command, and I miss it.
What are the immediate users of this command? Is something broken? Are
we in need of patching something? Does it solve some problem that "tail
-r" cannot solve?
I've checked pkgsrc and we are not patchi
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 02:48:12AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
>
> With this, just commit it (don't forget the set lists).
What he said.
Thor
Date:Sun, 1 Oct 2017 19:27:15 +
From:m...@netbsd.org
Message-ID: <20171001192715.ga21...@homeworld.netbsd.org>
| I've done this, and added a man page.
In the man page, alter (in this part)
| +.Sh DESCRIPTION
| +This displays the contents of each of each of
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 01:34:26AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Sun, 1 Oct 2017 11:53:05 -0400
> From:Thor Lancelot Simon
> Message-ID: <20171001155305.ga27...@panix.com>
>
> | It's low risk (unlike, say, modifying the parser in the shell ;-)),
>
> Nah - that's
Date:Sun, 1 Oct 2017 11:53:05 -0400
From:Thor Lancelot Simon
Message-ID: <20171001155305.ga27...@panix.com>
| It's low risk (unlike, say, modifying the parser in the shell ;-)),
Nah - that's easy, no risk at all!
| And, frankly, I like the name ("tac")
So do I,
adjusted per comments from uwe, to match head (and gnu)
code copied matching head.
add options to tail:
-q (never print header of filename)
-v (always print header of filename)
same as head, same as gnu tail
add tac which is like tail -rq
Index: Makefile
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 03:24:06PM +, Valery Ushakov wrote:
>
> It doesn't work the same for multiple files.
I guess the question is whether we ought to have this if it can be made to
work the same way for multiple files.
My inclination is "yes". It's low risk (unlike, say, modifying
the pa
co...@sdf.org wrote:
> reversing lines currently:
> BSDs: tail -r
> GNU: tac
>
> Anyone writing portable code: sed '1!G;h;$!d'
> (Yes that actually works)
>
> Attached diff adds a hard link tac (need set lists adjusted though, and
> I have a man page). it doesn't add any of the GNU tac options.
minus using optind uninitialized
Hi
reversing lines currently:
BSDs: tail -r
GNU: tac
Anyone writing portable code: sed '1!G;h;$!d'
(Yes that actually works)
Attached diff adds a hard link tac (need set lists adjusted though, and
I have a man page). it doesn't add any of the GNU tac options.
Cost: a hard link.
Index: Makefile
21 matches
Mail list logo
