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.
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"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