|
| From: | Philip Rowlands |
| Subject: | Re: seq 0 10 100|sed 1d |
| Date: | Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:06:59 +0100 (BST) |
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
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |