Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:44:32 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT usa DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: new version of bash 2.02.1 uploaded
In-Reply-To: <199901260020.AAA225886@out2.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990126093847.16926H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Mark E. wrote:

> Redirected output is now opened in binary mode instead of text mode. 

This actually worries me.  Most programs expect their stdout be in text 
mode by default, and this change might break them.  Programs usually 
switch stdout to binary mode if needed, but most of them won't bother to 
switch to text mode, on the assumption that it already is that way.

> This is to (hopefully) prevent mixed EOL styles that confuse Bash with 
> libtool, etc. generated files.

Isn't it a better idea to fix whatever reason causes Bash to become 
confused with mixed EOL format?  It's usually best to solve the bug at 
the place where it happens, instead of looking for ways of working around 
it.

Can you describe why does Bash barf on mixed DOS/Unix files?  AFAIK, no 
other text-processing program cares too much about such files.  Why Bash 
is different?