From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mod.civil.su.OZ.AU ([129.78.142.6]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2757>; Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:05:00 -0400
Received: by mod.civil.su.oz.au id <28682>; Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:04:29 +1000
From:	John (_You_ hide, they seek.) Mackin <john@civil.su.oz.au>
Date:	Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:57:30 -0400
To:	Byron Rakitzis <byron@netapp.com>
cc:	Boyd Roberts <boyd@prl.dec.com>,
	The rc Mailing List <rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: compact - a history-file compaction command
In-Reply-To: <9210040550.AA16988@netapp.netapp.com>
Message-ID: <199210041557.18168.rc.babuf@civil.su.oz.au>
X-Face: 39seV7n\`#asqOFdx#oj/Uz*lseO_1n9n7rQS;~ve\e`&Z},nU1+>0X^>mg&M.^X$[ez>{F
 k5[Ah<7xBWF<un6={nlL7Om5<0UsuHKjCxs)C$`DP.N'-LLb8=8)"a@d2bG-f7qD2AJ#UZ>-@-ru?&
 @4K4-b`ydd^`(n%Z{

    	tac | onlyfirst | tac

Sorry, Byron, but I don't buy this (as you already know).  Here's why:
sure, I already had "revfile".  Sure, "revfile"/"tac" is independently
useful (_very_ useful).  It's the _middle_ of the pipeline I'm against.
Are you going to claim that onlyfirst is any more generally useful
than compact?  If so, please give examples, because I don't think it
is.  From a slightly abstract point of view, they are nearly the same
program (compact could have been called "onlylast").

OK,
John.