Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Originating-IP: [68.101.155.172] X-Originating-Email: [karlm30 AT hotmail DOT com] X-Sender: karlm30 AT hotmail DOT com From: "Karl M" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on mixed files. Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 23:27:57 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2004 06:27:58.0031 (UTC) FILETIME=[22F9E5F0:01C41AD7] X-IsSubscribed: yes Note-from-DJ: This may be spam Hi All... I too would favor that the d2u and u2d just do what I say. Failing that, instead of --force, could we use --please-o-please-convert-this-file-i-really-mean-it perhaps the I should be capitalized. Thanks, ...Karl >From: Charles Wilson >To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com >Subject: Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on mixed >files. >Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:32:36 -0400 > >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. > >(*) 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/ > _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 -- 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/