[9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Mateusz Piotrowski]

Hello,

I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some 
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. 
"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 
it is explained?

Cheers!

Mateusz Piotrowski

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

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Robert Raschke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1182 bytes --]

Hi Mateusz,

as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is
trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from.

Cheers,
Robby
On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp302@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello,

I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some
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.
"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
it is explained?

Cheers!

Mateusz Piotrowski

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1851 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Alexander Kapshuk]

Both 'Zerox' and 'Snarf' are there:

/sys/src/cmd/acme/cols.c:34
textinsert(t, 0, L"New Cut Paste Snarf Sort Zerox Delcol ", 38, TRUE);

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke <rtrlists@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
>
> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is
> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from.
>
> Cheers,
> Robby
>
> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp302@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some
> 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.
> "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
> it is explained?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mateusz Piotrowski
>
> [1]:
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan-9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Rob Pike]

The operation is not to copy but to snarf. It's called snarf because
snarf is what it does. There is no design document.

-rob

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Both 'Zerox' and 'Snarf' are there:
>
> /sys/src/cmd/acme/cols.c:34
> textinsert(t, 0, L"New Cut Paste Snarf Sort Zerox Delcol ", 38, TRUE);
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke <rtrlists@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Mateusz,
>>
>> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is
>> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robby
>>
>> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp302@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some
>> 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.
>> "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
>> it is explained?
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Mateusz Piotrowski
>>
>> [1]:
>> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan-9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy
>

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Mateusz Piotrowski]

On 12 Sep 2016, at 14:27, Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:

> The operation is not to copy but to snarf. It's called snarf because
> snarf is what it does. There is no design document.

Thank you, Rob!

Mateusz

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1453 bytes --]

Zerox is very different. Try this: Zerox a pane, put the cursors of both
panes at the same spot and edit one.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:39 AM Robert Raschke <rtrlists@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Mateusz,
>
> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is
> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from.
>
> Cheers,
> Robby
> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp302@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some
> 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.
> "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
> it is explained?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mateusz Piotrowski
>
> [1]:
> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan-9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2279 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Winston Kodogo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2433 bytes --]

Channeling my inner Quine here. Did you mean:

The operation is not "copy" but "snarf". It's called "snarf" because
snarf is what it does.

Of course the White Knight would also have asked what the name of the
operation was called.

But be that as it may, a simple explanation of the difference between
"snarf" and "copy" would be welcome, especially since under Windows I can
snarf in Sam and paste into TextPad. Whereas I have to copy in Notepad and
paste into TextPad.

On 13 September 2016 at 00:27, Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:

> The operation is not to copy but to snarf. It's called snarf because
> snarf is what it does. There is no design document.
>
> -rob
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Both 'Zerox' and 'Snarf' are there:
> >
> > /sys/src/cmd/acme/cols.c:34
> > textinsert(t, 0, L"New Cut Paste Snarf Sort Zerox Delcol ", 38, TRUE);
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke <rtrlists@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi Mateusz,
> >>
> >> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is
> >> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Robby
> >>
> >> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp302@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some
> >> 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.
> >> "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
> >> it is explained?
> >>
> >> Cheers!
> >>
> >> Mateusz Piotrowski
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-
> plan-9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3765 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Why does Plan 9 use “snarf” instead of “copy”?

[Jules Merit]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2802 bytes --]

The EUROcorp fork of plan9 has no snafu. Haven't figured out how to name
things for brown nosers to climb the SocLadder of troglodytes. I tried
inventing spork(), but who would want to read your e-mails.

On Sep 12, 2016 8:00 PM, "Winston Kodogo" <kodogo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Channeling my inner Quine here. Did you mean:
>
> The operation is not "copy" but "snarf". It's called "snarf" because
> snarf is what it does.
>
> Of course the White Knight would also have asked what the name of the
> operation was called.
>
> But be that as it may, a simple explanation of the difference between
> "snarf" and "copy" would be welcome, especially since under Windows I can
> snarf in Sam and paste into TextPad. Whereas I have to copy in Notepad and
> paste into TextPad.
>
> On 13 September 2016 at 00:27, Rob Pike <robpike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The operation is not to copy but to snarf. It's called snarf because
>> snarf is what it does. There is no design document.
>>
>> -rob
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Both 'Zerox' and 'Snarf' are there:
>> >
>> > /sys/src/cmd/acme/cols.c:34
>> > textinsert(t, 0, L"New Cut Paste Snarf Sort Zerox Delcol ", 38, TRUE);
>> >
>> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Robert Raschke <
>> rtrlists@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi Mateusz,
>> >>
>> >> as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox". But that is
>> >> trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" comes from.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Robby
>> >>
>> >> On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski" <mpp302@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I've discovered Plan 9 recently and became curious about some
>> >> 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.
>> >> "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
>> >> it is explained?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers!
>> >>
>> >> Mateusz Piotrowski
>> >>
>> >> [1]:
>> >> http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/308943/why-does-plan
>> -9-use-snarf-instead-of-copy
>> >
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4320 bytes --]