Wrapping long lines (Was Re: FAQ update suggestion for "I'm having basic problems with find. Why?")
Fri Jul 9 18:37:00 GMT 2004
*** Christopher Faylor (email@example.com)...:
:) On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Eduardo Chappa wrote:
:) >*** Christopher Faylor ...:
:) >>Maybe you're being purposely obtuse. I don't know. My point was
:) >>that if I send specially formatted text in my messages to a technical
:) >>mailing list I don't want the archiving software to unformat it for
:) >>me. What it does to the email reader on your PDA is irrelevant.
:) >What you do not understand is that i am talking about a PDA as a
:) >screen, like the one that you are reading your e-mail message.
:) Rest assured, I know that PDAs have screens.
That was not my point. Re read the text, maybe you'll get it the second
time. If not, go back to high school before you read it for the third
time, maybe you'll get it at that time. If not, just give up.
:) >>>If someone provides a patch and I were to cut and paste that patch,
:) >>>I would call myself crazy, I would normally save the patch to a file
:) >>>directly, so this is not an issue.
:) >>The issue is inspecting the patch in the archives. If you have to
:) >>puzzle out where the line breaks actually occur because your web
:) >>browser is helpfully wrapping things for you, then the utility of the
:) >>archives has been diminished for some people (like me).
:) >I understand, I see how this could be an issue. But adding <BR>, as I
:) >mentioned before fixes this problem.
:) >>>On the other hand, just to mention something, instead of saying "NO, it
:) >>>won't happen", maybe you may want to experiment on adding <BR> at the
:) >>>end of each line, or adding <P> instead of having empty lines, or
:) >>>things like that. Probably does not work out of the box, but it
:) >>>probably can be tuned to fit most messages, if not all.
:) >>That's sort of presumptuous, don't you think?
:) I phrased that poorly. Let me restate.
:) I think your suggestion was presumptuous.
That's your opinion, I do not agree with that. I think it's a natural
:) >>You don't even know how the archives are generated but you have no
:) >>qualms about suggesting that I take my time trying to "fix" something
:) >>which I've already indicated is not broken.
:) >I do not need to know how the archives are generated to see that they
:) >are broken, but if you want to spare your time explaining this to me,
:) >I am happy to read it.
:) You're welcome to do this research yourself. Start by inspecting the
:) email archives themselves for clues.
No thanks, however I will make a deal with you. If I make this research,
you do the change in the way the archives are generated, so that all
people in this thread be happy. Do we have a deal?
:) Frankly, since I only barely understand what PDAs are and since I
:) really don't know what this "<br>" stuff is all about, I don't think
:) you'd want to engage me in a discussion about complicated stuff like
:) mail archiving. You'd be spending all of your time explaining stuff to
Maybe, maybe not. We can try. It's up to you, not up to me.
:) >I never used the word "fix", please do not misunderstand me. I refer
:) >to this as "enhance". Yes, it is broken, by the way.
:) So, it's "broken" and you want me to "enhance" it so that it won't be
:) "broken" anymore but you were not suggesting a "fix". Got it.
I said enhance because I do think that it is possible to do better than a
PRE tag, I said broken because a PRE tag is obviously wrong. You can keep
it broken, or you can enhance it, up to you. I do not call it "fix" it,
because it works very well, but it's not ideal.
:) >>Again, I am not going to spend any time trying to set up the cygwin
:) >>mailing list as a special case. There are surely other sites
:) >>archiving the mailing list out there somewhere. Use one of them if
:) >>the formatting in the sourceware.org archive offends you.
:) >It has not offended me. Did I say so?
:) I guess I was inferring from your multiple messages to this thread, and
:) by your attempts to offer simple suggestions for "enhancing" things,
:) that you did not like the current state of affairs. I stand corrected.
Yeah, don't draw conclusions like that. You are very good to add words
where there weren't any.
:) >>OTOH, if anyone wants to change the policy of sourceware.org, you are
:) >>welcome to send email to the overseers mailing list and lobby for
:) >>change. I don't think you are going to find a receptive audience,
:) >>but I could be wrong.
:) >I don't think it's the time to send such request. I will wait a couple
:) >of years to do so.
:) Then you are done with this discussion except as a theoretical exercise,
I did not say so. You are very good to "infer" INCORRECT opinions out
loud. You SHOULD not. This is not a theoretical exercise, you can do
something about it that I can not.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin