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 troublesome
> > for my
>
> [ ... ]
>
> 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.
GNU coreutils seq does this:
otos:~ 2057> seq -s , 1 3
1,2,3
Looking at their seq.c:
/* The string used to separate two numbers. */
static char const *separator;
/* The string output after all numbers have been output.
Usually "\n" or "\0". */
static char const terminator[] = "\n";
with no option to change the terminator option.
I agree that Aran's suggested change looks a good idea.
Cheers,
Simon.
