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

[Karl M]

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/