From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <588FD028-FA0F-4739-AEE9-8A4F7F2208E4@gmail.com> From: Robert Raschke Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:38:53 +0200 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b02824bee62053c4d1a28 Subject: Re: [9fans] =?utf-8?q?Why_does_Plan_9_use_=E2=80=9Csnarf=E2=80=9D_ins?= =?utf-8?b?dGVhZCBvZiDigJxjb3B54oCdPw==?= Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9d526e56-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --001a113b02824bee62053c4d1a28 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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" 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 --001a113b02824bee62053c4d1a28 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Mateusz,

as far as I remember, it was originally called "xerox&q= uot;. But that is trademarked. No idea where the word "snarf" com= es from.

Cheers,
Robby

On 12 Sep 2016 12:19, "Mateusz Piotrowski&q= uot; <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
--001a113b02824bee62053c4d1a28--