I don't think the behavior should be changed. d2u stands for dos to unix which means \r\n to \n. Why would one expect a dos to unix utility to convert mixed line terminator files. If you need such a utility, then add one but don't take a utility that does dos to unix and try to turn it in to "anything" to unix or if you do then change the name. Just my 2 cents worth
> -----Original Message----- > From: Charles Wilson > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 12:33 AM > Subject: Re: Bogus assumption prevents d2u/u2d/conv/etal working on > mixed files. > > > 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/ > > -- 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/
