On 22/02/2022 17:12, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 1/4/21 20:08, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 1/4/21 7:44 PM, Bela Lubkin wrote:
TLDR: *huge* existing presence of 'iseek' and 'oseek'; most OSes document
them as pure synonyms for 'skip' and 'seek'.
Thanks for doing all that research. It's compelling, and I
On 1/4/21 20:08, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 1/4/21 7:44 PM, Bela Lubkin wrote:
TLDR: *huge* existing presence of 'iseek' and 'oseek'; most OSes document
them as pure synonyms for 'skip' and 'seek'.
Thanks for doing all that research. It's compelling, and I think your
patch (or something like it)
On 1/4/21 7:44 PM, Bela Lubkin wrote:
TLDR: *huge* existing presence of 'iseek' and 'oseek'; most OSes document
them as pure synonyms for 'skip' and 'seek'.
Thanks for doing all that research. It's compelling, and I think your
patch (or something like it) should go in. I'll wait for a bit to
TLDR: *huge* existing presence of 'iseek' and 'oseek'; most OSes document
them as pure synonyms for 'skip' and 'seek'.
The implementation where I encountered it was SCO OpenServer. Like
Solaris, there was a distinction between 'iseek' and 'skip' ('skip' reads,
'iseek' seeks); no
On 1/5/21 3:06 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 1/4/21 3:07 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> What 'dd' implementation was this specifically?
>
> Solaris dd has iseek and oseek. However, they are not aliases for skip
> and seek. If coreutils dd were to add these features I expect we should
> do them
On 1/4/21 3:07 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
I previously encountered a `dd` implementation which also accepted
'oseek=N' and 'iseek=N', which I found far more natural and easy to
remember.
What 'dd' implementation was this specifically?
Solaris dd has iseek and oseek. However, they are not
On 1/4/21 4:03 AM, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> I constantly confuse 'seek=N' and 'skip=N'. The two words have no natural
> affinity to one I/O direction or the other.
While the words 'seek' and 'skip' may not be strong enough for everyone
to be clear about whether they apply on input or output - e.g.
On Jan 03 2021, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/coreutils.texi b/doc/coreutils.texi
> index e9dd21c4e..417857c5e 100644
> --- a/doc/coreutils.texi
> +++ b/doc/coreutils.texi
> @@ -9100,6 +9100,15 @@ Skip @var{n} @samp{obs}-byte blocks in the output
> file before copying.
> if
Hello --
I constantly confuse 'seek=N' and 'skip=N'. The two words have no natural
affinity to one I/O direction or the other.
I previously encountered a `dd` implementation which also accepted
'oseek=N' and 'iseek=N', which I found far more natural and easy to
remember.
Here is a small patch
