From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mateusz Piotrowski <mpp302@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <588FD028-FA0F-4739-AEE9-8A4F7F2208E4@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:19:14 +0200
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: [9fans] =?utf-8?q?Why_does_Plan_9_use_=E2=80=9Csnarf=E2=80=9D_ins?=
 =?utf-8?b?dGVhZCBvZiDigJxjb3B54oCdPw==?=
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9d413780-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Hello,

I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some=20
design decisions.

Why there is a snarf buffer and not a copy buffer?

As it might seem to be a dull question, it is not. I am very
interested in the reason behind this decision. I've browsed
numerous websites (including cat-v.org and the 9fans archives)
but I wasn't able to find anything about it.

I decided to ask this question [1] on Unix & Linux StackExchange
but its community doesn't seem to know the answer.

My guess is that "copying" is not as an atomic action.=20
"Copying" is in fact:

- obtaining the content you want to copy (_snarfing_)
- inserting the content where you want it to be (_pasting_)

Hence the use of snarf instead of copy.

Am I right? Is there a document / book / article where=20
it is explained?

Cheers!

Mateusz Piotrowski

[1]: =
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan-9-use-snarf-i=
nstead-of-copy=