From: Greg Troxel
> Brian Ginsbach writes:
>
>> It has been a while since I wrote that code but my recollection is
>> that it isn't necessarily a bug. That GNU copied and changed the
>> meaning of -s (again provided my recollection is correct) isn't
>> surprising either. I'd need to dig back to s
Brian Ginsbach writes:
> It has been a while since I wrote that code but my recollection is
> that it isn't necessarily a bug. That GNU copied and changed the
> meaning of -s (again provided my recollection is correct) isn't
> surprising either. I'd need to dig back to see what GNU seq had 20
> y
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:16:58PM +1100, Simon Burge wrote:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> > a...@100acres.us writes:
> >
> > > The seq command behaves a little differently than I expect. I needed a
> > > comma
> > > separated list of integers, but seq gave me this:
> > >
> > > $seq -s , 1 3
> > >
Greg Troxel wrote:
> a...@100acres.us writes:
>
> > The seq command behaves a little differently than I expect. I needed a
> > comma
> > separated list of integers, but seq gave me this:
> >
> > $seq -s , 1 3
> > 1,2,3,$
> >
> > Notice the extra comma and no trailing return. The comma is trou
a...@100acres.us writes:
> The seq command behaves a little differently than I expect. I needed a comma
> separated list of integers, but seq gave me this:
>
> $seq -s , 1 3
> 1,2,3,$
>
> Notice the extra comma and no trailing return. The comma is troublesome for
> my
>From reading the man p
All,
The seq command behaves a little differently than I expect. I needed a comma
separated list of integers, but seq gave me this:
$seq -s , 1 3
1,2,3,$
Notice the extra comma and no trailing return. The comma is troublesome for my
particular purpose. It seems that the item separator (-s)
