On Sun, Sep 21, 2025 at 13:04:59 +0200, pourko--- via Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 15:57:08 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote: > > I have two -- no, three -- no, four -- issues with this function: > > > > 1) It's overriding the seq(1) command on systems which have one, with > > a less capable alternative. > > 2) It's "off by one" if you provide two sensible inputs. This is the > > issue that I believe prompted this entire thread. > > 3) If the inputs are equal, then based on the above, you would expect > > it to give two numbers as output. But because of the "if" check, > > it gives none. > > 4) It uses echo -n instead of printf. echo is not reliable. > > Greg, I completely agree about your points 2), 3), and 4). > I was merely making a point about your 1): > > Shadowing a command with a function is not necessarily an "issue" > if an author desires to do so in a certain script. This is an example.
Sure, except this isn't a script. It's in a file named Bash_aliases contained in a directory named examples/startup-files. It was clearly intended to be copied into one's ~/.bashrc file (or to be dotted in from there). Including it in your ~/.bashrc would effectively mask the real seq(1) command in all of your interactive shells. A naive user might not even understand that this is happening.
