Re: Incompatible seq behaviour

[Michiel Buddingh' <michiel%michielbuddingh.net@localhost>]

Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach%NetBSD.org@localhost> wrote:
> Also jot(1) does not have seq(1)'s equal width feature.

You can get close to it, though, using the -w argument and a
printf-style specification, but I agree that may not be very
convenient.

> Consensus, at the time, by core members, if I recall correctly,
> was that it was ok to add seq(1).

Quoting from that discussion:

Hubert Feyrer:
 >>> Why do you think this must be committed?
Luke Mewburn:
 >> At a guess: "because many Linux distros have such a command [because of
 >> GNU coreutils] and many 3rd party tools/scripts assume it's available".
Jason Thorpe:
 > Indeed.  I don't see any problem with putting it in the base system.

Whether the current differences between the seqs existed even back then, 
or whether the GNU coreutils people changed the rules, the fact of the
matter is that the consensus established back then does not hold today.

I'd also like to add that if my previous two replies to list seemed lengthier
and more personal in tone than appropriate, it was because I intended them
as off-list replies to Brian Ginsbach.  But I certainly stand by the
arguments expressed therein.

        -- Michiel Buddingh'