On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Dan Jacobson wrote: >seq should have some more options so one wouldn't have to use sed here: >$ seq 0 10 100|sed 1d
I think "seq 10 10 100" will give the same result. Cheers, Phil _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
