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 page, the extra comma is a bug, and the lack of a trailing return is correct. > particular purpose. It seems that the item separator (-s) is really an item > terminator. I was expecting this: > > $seq -s , 1 3 > 1,2,3 > $ > > I'm sure there is some not-obvious-to-me reason for the current behavior. It could just be a bug. But the man page is inconsistent. I suspect there is almost no use of -s. But I wonder. If this change makes seq with -s behave like GNU seq, and more closely aligns with seq's own man page, that seems like a reasonable thing. > However, I implemented what I expected and build a distribution without issue. > The attached diff implements the proposed behavior. > > Aran > Index: seq.1 > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvsroot/src/usr.bin/seq/seq.1,v > retrieving revision 1.9 > diff -u -r1.9 seq.1 > --- seq.1 18 Aug 2016 22:55:28 -0000 1.9 > +++ seq.1 13 Dec 2018 17:35:48 -0000 > @@ -117,8 +117,7 @@ > can contain character escape sequences in backslash notation as > defined in > .St -ansiC . > -This option is useful when the default separator > -does not contain a > +The default is > .Cm \en . > .It Fl w > Equalize the widths of all numbers by padding with zeros as necessary. > Index: seq.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvsroot/src/usr.bin/seq/seq.c,v > retrieving revision 1.10 > diff -u -r1.10 seq.c > --- seq.c 29 Oct 2017 01:28:46 -0000 1.10 > +++ seq.c 13 Dec 2018 17:35:48 -0000 > @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ > fprintf(stderr, > "usage: %s [-w] [-f format] [-s string] [-t string] [first > [incr]] last\n", > getprogname()); > - exit(1); > +exit(1); Why the whitespace change? The rest seems ok, except I'm not sure what happens if the for loop would not run the first time, but perhaps that can't happen.
