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