This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on mixed files.


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 <cygwin@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
To: cygwin@cygwin.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.<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/


_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]