Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Disallowing it is fine, but if you disallow it, it seems reasonable to > expect the program to say that it was disallowed :-). (I'm on the fence > if this counts as a specification or implementation detail.)
The more specification details we can agree on, the less programming time & effort will be wasted. But at a certain point, we need to write them down somewhere else, otherwise it'll be hard to summarize them easily. > >Agreed (except s/nine/ten/). > > Erm... no, I think nine is right... > > line n -n > 1 1 -9 > 2 2 -8 > 3 3 -7 > 4 4 -6 > 5 5 -5 > 6 6 -4 > 7 7 -3 > 8 8 -2 > 9 9 -1 > > ...so '5,-5' in this case refers to one line... the fifth one. Yes, you're right. > So I guess it's important to specify if '-1' means "the last line", or > "the n'th-to-last last line (n==1 in this example)" (in which case '-0' > means something). Similarly, if 'n,+k' means "k line(s), starting at n" > or "line n plus k line(s)". I fail to see where your descriptions don't apply to the current working mechanism (implying that I eventually don't fully grok your wording). > Possibly best to pick so that '-0' and '+0' both either make sense > or do not make sense. I think I lean towards being all one-based. I wouldn't want to use '+0' & '-0', because '+0' is basically a no-op and assigning '-0' a meaning when '-1' does the same, seems superfluous. We could emit some kind of outbound-error though. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
