Re: [BUG?] blame: Odd -L 1,+0 behavior

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

As a side effect of the internal implementation of this logic -L 5,3
means the same thing as -L 3,5 but that is not an intended nor
documented behaviour.

How should L 5,3 and 3,5 work? Should the former give an error?

"-L 3,5" would choose "lines 3,4, and 5" (both ends inclusive).  Currently
"-L 5,3" does the same thing but as I said, that is not an intended nor
documented behaviour, and if you are tackling this area to tighten the
parsing and error diagnosis, I think it is reasonable to error it out.

quoted

quoted

Shouldn't this either print nothing, er be an error:

(multiple)

The parsing code is lax in the sense that rejecting nonsensical input like
"-L 10,-100" and "-L 2,+0" as an error was not considered a primary goal.
The only error checking it does is to make sure it does not parse numbers
that it cannot use (i.e. start from line 30 in a file that does not have
that many lines).

Do you want a patch to make it less lax?

Be my guest ;-)  Thanks.