This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:17:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
- References: <453EA9C1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <000601c6f7e5$d3f8b0a0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 10:29:44PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
>> From: Eric Blake
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: igncr vs text mode mounts, performance vs compatibility
>> According to Lewis Hyatt on 10/24/2006 12:57 PM:
>> > Just a thought, it would probably solve 99% of people's problems if
>> > you just specified that if the first line of the script
>> ends in \r\n,
>> > then \r will be ignored for the rest of the file. Then you
>> would just
>> > need to read the first line a byte at a time, and every subsequent
>> > line could be read efficiently whenever possible, right?
>> And it seems
>> > unlikely that this could possibly break anything.
>> Propose a patch, and I will consider it. In my opinion, it
>> was much easier to do igncr as an all or none option than it
>> was to parse the first line and discard \r on a per-file
>> basis, not to mention that all-or-none is easily configurable
>> so that those of us who WANT literal \r
>I'm just curious here: *Why* do you (or anybody else) want bash to not
>ignore \r's (or better stated, to only understand The One True Text File
>Format (Whatever That Is)(tm))? I keep trying to figure out what is going
>to break when bash suddenly is able to understand \r\n as well as \n, and
>keep coming up empty. Furthermore, I don't recall a single instance of
>anybody coming to the list with a problem that was due to bash ignoring \r's
>(when it used to do so).
I think I'm going to start a counter. With one exception, I'm going to
start counting each category at three even though that's probably a low
Repetitive Observation Count*
Someone suggests that the best way to handle the CRLF 3
problem is to read the first line but doesn't offer
Someone expresses confusion about the reasons for the 3
changes to bash.
Someone expresses philosophical points of view about 3
Cygwin's goals based on their discoveries about bash.
Someone generalizes that bash and make decisions were 3
Someone notices problems with bash after an upgrade 5
but ignores any bash announcements.