Andreas Schwab [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you think is unclear about this sentence?
That is, an omitted INCREMENT defaults to 1 even when LAST is smaller
than FIRST.
Okay, that's clear; I do not knwo why I missed it.
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for
Karl Eichwalder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reading the --help text of 'seq' (5.1.3 from alpha)
This is very old. Latest release is 5.2.1.
I'm inclined to assume
seq 3 1
and
seq 3 -1 1
should result in the same output:
3
2
1
But 'seq 3 1' does not produce any
Karl Eichwalder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading the --help text of 'seq' (5.1.3 from alpha) I'm inclined to
assume
seq 3 1
and
seq 3 -1 1
should result in the same output:
3
2
1
But 'seq 3 1' does not produce any output. The --help text:
INCREMENT is
