[Toybox] [PATCH] Fix various seq bugs.

[Rob Landley]

On 09/10/2017 02:00 PM, enh wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:
>> On 05/23/2017 02:18 AM, Josh Gao wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net
>>> <mailto:rob at landley.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     What's the use case for this code? Did they notice a difference from gnu
>>>     and say "any difference is a bug", or was somebody actually trying to do
>>>     something that broke?
>>>
>>>
>>> The surprising behavior that I ran into was this:
>>>
>>>     $ seq 1000000 1000001
>>>     1e+06
>>>     1e+06
>>
>> Ok, digging back down to this, that was the only issue you hit? It
>> should _not_ spontaneously produce engineering notation output? (Agreed,
>> of course...)
> 
> (sorry, been sick.)

I sat on the issue for 4 months, so not your fault.

> yes, the only bug that was reported was that.
> 
> all the rest were based on poking at GNU seq to see how it behaves. as
> yet i've had no requests for any of the oddities i found.

I wound up keeping the "increment 0 means no output" and "last sets
precision too" differences from the seq in ubuntu. They're easy to
change but I'd like a reason other than "it's different"...

(Those seq behaviors aren't _internally_ self-consistent: why would the
first 2 arguments set precision but not the third? Why would you produce
no output for last < first but endless output for last == first? A
standard for this command would be so nice...)

Rob