The EUROcorp fork of plan9 has no snafu. Haven't figured out how to name things for brown nosers to climb the SocLadder of troglodytes. I tried inventing spork(), but who would want to read your e-mails.
On Sep 12, 2016 8:00 PM, "Winston Kodogo" <[email protected]> wrote: > Channeling my inner Quine here. Did you mean: > > The operation is not "copy" but "snarf". It's called "snarf" because > snarf is what it does. > > Of course the White Knight would also have asked what the name of the > operation was called. > > But be that as it may, a simple explanation of the difference between > "snarf" and "copy" would be welcome, especially since under Windows I can > snarf in Sam and paste into TextPad. Whereas I have to copy in Notepad and > paste into TextPad. > > On 13 September 2016 at 00:27, Rob Pike <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The operation is not to copy but to snarf. It's called snarf because >> snarf is what it does. There is no design document. >> >> -rob >> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Alexander Kapshuk >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Both 'Zerox' and 'Snarf' are there: >> > >> > /sys/src/cmd/acme/cols.c:34 >> > textinsert(t, 0, L"New Cut Paste Snarf Sort Zerox Delcol ", 38, TRUE); >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mateusz, >> >> >> >> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is >> >> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Robby >> >> >> >> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some >> >> design decisions. >> >> >> >> Why there is a snarf buffer and not a copy buffer? >> >> >> >> As it might seem to be a dull question, it is not. I am very >> >> interested in the reason behind this decision. I've browsed >> >> numerous websites (including cat-v.org and the 9fans archives) >> >> but I wasn't able to find anything about it. >> >> >> >> I decided to ask this question [1] on Unix & Linux StackExchange >> >> but its community doesn't seem to know the answer. >> >> >> >> My guess is that "copying" is not as an atomic action. >> >> "Copying" is in fact: >> >> >> >> - obtaining the content you want to copy (_snarfing_) >> >> - inserting the content where you want it to be (_pasting_) >> >> >> >> Hence the use of snarf instead of copy. >> >> >> >> Am I right? Is there a document / book / article where >> >> it is explained? >> >> >> >> Cheers! >> >> >> >> Mateusz Piotrowski >> >> >> >> [1]: >> >> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan >> -9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy >> > >> >> >
