Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/10/24/23:30:11
> From: Eric Blake
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:03 PM
> Subject: Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
>
> According to Lewis Hyatt on 10/24/2006 12:57 PM:
> > Just a thought, it would probably solve 99% of people's problems if
> > you just specified that if the first line of the script
> ends in \r\n,
> > then \r will be ignored for the rest of the file. Then you
> would just
> > need to read the first line a byte at a time, and every subsequent
> > line could be read efficiently whenever possible, right?
> And it seems
> > unlikely that this could possibly break anything.
>
> Propose a patch, and I will consider it. In my opinion, it
> was much easier to do igncr as an all or none option than it
> was to parse the first line and discard \r on a per-file
> basis, not to mention that all-or-none is easily configurable
> so that those of us who WANT literal \r
I'm just curious here: *Why* do you (or anybody else) want bash to not
ignore \r's (or better stated, to only understand The One True Text File
Format (Whatever That Is)(tm))? I keep trying to figure out what is going
to break when bash suddenly is able to understand \r\n as well as \n, and
keep coming up empty. Furthermore, I don't recall a single instance of
anybody coming to the list with a problem that was due to bash ignoring \r's
(when it used to do so).
> as required by POSIX
> can do so.
Is this the reason? If so, do you know why POSIX requires this? At some
point POSIX compliance ceased to be a goal of the Cygwin project, so I don't
see that as an argument either way.
--
Gary R. Van Sickle
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -