This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on mixed files.
- From: "Karl M" <karlm30 at hotmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 23:27:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on mixed files.
- Bcc:
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/