tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Incompatible seq behaviour

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 03:15:36AM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> >   * It's better not to be compatible at all, than to to be
> >     incompatible in non-obvious ways.
> If people want (some of) the functionality but don't want to be
> anything like compatible with other seqs, I have a count(1) I wrote
> long ago which subsumes integer uses of seq (and has a lot more
> features besides), but with a completely different interface - my count
> makes no effort to be compatible with anything, and until this
> discussion arose I wasn't aware seq existed at all.

Why do we need seq(1) in the first place? We also have jot(1).  Seems
like gratuitous duplication of functionality to me.

"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth

Attachment: pgpkyGEDihPNs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index