Subject: Re: ASCII and BINARY files. Why?
From: [email-masked] ("Alex Stewart")

9 Feb 1997 17:40:18 -0800
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Comments: Authenticated sender is <[email-masked]>
Original-To: [email-masked] (gnu-win32)
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23)
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

> > > It might well be straightforward to implement 't' and O_TEXT,
> > > but it would be a _bad idea_ to do so, because it would be a
> > > bad idea to use those features.  Using 't' and O_TEXT would be a bad
> > > idea even if they were implemented, because doing so would reduce
> > > portability, rather than improving it, because they are non-standard.
> > 
> > So your argument is "I don't want to use it, so nobody else should be
> > allowed to."?  That is, quite frankly, pathetic.
> 
> No, that's not my argument.  Please don't put words into my mouth,
> especially not when they are unrelated to what I actually said.

Well, that is exactly what you said.  (perhaps if you don't want words put 
in your mouth, you shouldn't put them there yourself)  You stated that it 
was a "bad idea" (implying that it shouldn't be done) to add support for 
these mechanisms in CygWin32 (thus denying them to everyone) simply 
because you felt it was a bad idea to make use of them (ergo, you don't 
want to use them, so nobody else should be allowed to).

> Thank you for that information.  Where did you find this out?
> Is this guaranteed by some standard?  Or is it just your assumption? Are
> you sure that some future system won't treat the "t" flag in fopen as say
> the "time bomb" option?

Ok, it is true that this is not defined by any standard, and therefore 
perhaps I should have said instead that it "is extremely unlikely 
(bordering on assurance) to reduce practical portability in any way".  
It's true that this revised statement may not be quite strong enough to 
satisfy a few developers, but the simple answer to that is "well, don't 
use the mechanism".

In any case, I see absolutely no reason why support for this could not or 
should not be added to CygWin32.  If you don't want to make use of it, 
don't use it.

-alex
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Alex Stewart - [email-masked] - Richelieu @ Diversity University MOO
                          http://www.crl.com/~riche/
            "Difficult answers lead to intelligent questions."
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".