[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23110: seq apparent bug
From: |
Bernhard Voelker |
Subject: |
bug#23110: seq apparent bug |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Apr 2016 11:02:03 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 |
tags 23110 notabug
close 23110
thanks
On 04/06/2016 08:19 PM, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> This sounds all true, however then these one should also run forever:
> $ seq 10 0 2
>
> Man page says:
> INCREMENT is usually positive if FIRST is smaller than LAST,
> and INCREMENT is usually negative if FIRST is greater than LAST.
>
> This implicates IMO that seq should try to count _down_ if FIRST > LAST
> and INCREMENT=0
Admittedly, the above documentation aims at useful constellations where
seq really operates as a sequence generator - maybe the wording around
"... usually ..." could be improved here.
In this case, it's not a matter of how increment is treated, but more
when seq ends - which is documented quite clearly both in the --help
output (and therefore in the generated man page), and in the Texinfo
manual:
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/seq
The sequence of numbers ends when the sum of the current number
and increment would become greater than last, [...]
> Moreover I'd say this one does not need to loop endless:
> $ seq 0 0 0
Why? The sum of 0+0 will never become _greater_ than 0.
Likewise for the OPs case ("seq -w 2 0 10"): the sum will never become
greater than 10.
Thus saying, I think this issue is more a confusion regarding the
expectations from the tool. I don't see why an increment of 0 should
be treated special here.
Therefore, I'm marking this issue as "not a bug", and closing it.
As always, further discussion may continue here, and we can re-open
this issue if needed ... especially if someone proposes a better
wording for the above documentation snippet. ;-)
Have a nice day,
Berny
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/06
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug,
Bernhard Voelker <=
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/07
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/07
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Pádraig Brady, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Paul Eggert, 2016/04/08
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Ruediger Meier, 2016/04/09
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/09
- Message not available
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Bernhard Voelker, 2016/04/14
- bug#23110: seq apparent bug, Pádraig Brady, 2016/04/14