Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 16:46:03 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Michel de Ruiter <Michel AT smr DOT nl>
cc: "'DJGPP workers'" <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: your mail
In-Reply-To: <B0FEA00E82A7D1118BFB00A0CC99027821320C@ARGON>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990310164108.4977C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Michel de Ruiter wrote:

> Hmm. So the behaviour of `-n' *should* depend on the
> filename, the way it does now.

That's my view, yes.  But I'm open to other views as well ;-).

> I don't know whether it should be implemented this way. Best would
> be, IMHO, to obey `-n'.

In gzip or in gunzip (or in both)?

> It is really not too important to me, but I found the current
> behaviour very counter-intuitive. I spent some time until I
> discovered `-n' was not obeyed on certain filenames.

I agree that it's tricky on DOS; I had hard time myself, when I tested 
the new port, to decide in each case whether the results were correct.  
Several times I was pretty sure I hit a bug, until I read the docs.

> I just thought I should report this bug, but now I see it is meant
> as a feature...

I would definitely say it's a feature.  But thanks for bringing it up 
anyway.