Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I fail to see where your descriptions don't apply to the current > >working mechanism (implying that I eventually don't fully grok your > >wording). > > Probably, because... > > [...] > > ...you obviously feel that '+0' means 'output no lines' and the last > line is '-1', not '-0'. (There is nothing wrong with this, I was just > noting that this is not the only possible interpretation.) Now that we > agree on our definitions, we (by which I mean "I") just need to try not > to mix them up :-).
Agreed. Both (the prefered & neglected) ways of operation are outlined below for the sake of completeness. current implementation (prefered) +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 discussed implementation (neglected) +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -0 _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils