On 12/26/2011 05:39 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 12/26/11 08:35, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> supporting --key would not provide this functionality. > > It would support it in the most common cases, no? > That is, if every line has (say) 10 fields, then > the proposed 'uniq -F3' would be equivalent to > the proposed 'uniq -k1,7'.
That's what I thought at first too, but then why didn't Adrien propose the more normal --check-fields=7 rather than the unusual -F3. > I can't offhand think of good use cases for uniq -F > that would not be subsumed by uniq -k. Me too, Having a variable number of fields per line, but ignoring the last constant N fields is very unusual, and why I asked for a concrete example. Personally I'm leaning towards suggesting `the rev| uniq -f | rev` is fine for this edge case. cheers, Pádraig.
