Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <4070E164.4030302@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:32:36 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040120 MultiZilla/1.6.2.0c
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on mixed files.
References: <NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCECEOODJAA DOT garbage_collector AT telia DOT com> <4070DA67 DOT 5090306 AT att DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <4070DA67.5090306@att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Fritz wrote:
> You guys are missing the point.  Charles Wilson mentioned a side effect 
> of the code at issue in the original post and suggested that it was 
> valuable.

I think there is some misunderstanding about the cygutils package.  I 
did not write any of it.(*)  I do not defend any of the design decisions 
that were made by the original coders; it's no skin off my nose -- so 
comments like "It should according to the thinking in this thread." fail 
to move me -- except as a data point that GVanSickle really REALLY 
dislikes the current behavior.<g>

(*) Well, maybe the hexdump program or the silly ascii chart, but it's 
been so long I don't remember anymore.


The d2u/u2d progs were some code I thought, back in the dawn of time, 
would be useful on the cygwin platform -- at least *I* had need of a 
dos2unix converter all the time.  So I found the code, adapted it, and 
put it in my "kit", which was called the "misc" package back then.

Now, I remember, when first porting the code for cygwin, wondering WHY 
it did certain things certain ways -- especially the "check the first 
line and bail out" stuff.  All I could figure, at the time, were the two 
reasons I posted in this thread.

I never said I agree with those reasons -- personally, I hate 'rm -i' 
and the like.  But *I am not willing* to unilaterally change behavior of 
tools that may adversely affect users, without a damn good reason. 
Unfortunately, "it offends a single user's sensibilities" -- even mine 
-- doesn't quite rise to that level.

And THAT's why I asked for more discussion.  I'm getting the feeling 
that a preponderance of users -- at least, the ones actually responding 
to this thread -- dislike the current behavior, or at least wouldn't 
mind a change away from the current Microsoft-Bob-like behavior.  I'd 
like to see what some other users, who haven't yet stated their 
opinions, have to say...

--
Chuck


--
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/