On 09/10/2017 02:00 PM, enh wrote: > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: >> On 05/23/2017 02:18 AM, Josh Gao wrote: >>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Rob Landley <r...@landley.net >>> <mailto:r...@landley.net>> wrote: >>> >>> What's the use case for this code? Did they notice a difference from gnu >>> and say "any difference is a bug", or was somebody actually trying to do >>> something that broke? >>> >>> >>> The surprising behavior that I ran into was this: >>> >>> $ seq 1000000 1000001 >>> 1e+06 >>> 1e+06 >> >> Ok, digging back down to this, that was the only issue you hit? It >> should _not_ spontaneously produce engineering notation output? (Agreed, >> of course...) > > (sorry, been sick.)
I sat on the issue for 4 months, so not your fault. > yes, the only bug that was reported was that. > > all the rest were based on poking at GNU seq to see how it behaves. as > yet i've had no requests for any of the oddities i found. I wound up keeping the "increment 0 means no output" and "last sets precision too" differences from the seq in ubuntu. They're easy to change but I'd like a reason other than "it's different"... (Those seq behaviors aren't _internally_ self-consistent: why would the first 2 arguments set precision but not the third? Why would you produce no output for last < first but endless output for last == first? A standard for this command would be so nice...) Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
