Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:34:21 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: "Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET)" <salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: auto-binary-mode?
In-Reply-To: <m0zJGzd-000S4fC@inti.gov.ar>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980916163104.7343D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:

> I agree with Andris and Morten, it must be an optional switch.

I agree with Morten that doing this by default might be dangerous, but I
also think that introducing an optional variable or O_xxx bit will render
this entire change useless.  The whole point of DJ's suggestion, as I
understand it, was to do all this transparently, like the support for
"/dev/null" we already have.  If an application will need to be aware of
the option and use it on purpose, why is this different from O_BINARY?