> 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). > as required by POSIX > can do so. Is this the reason? If so, do you know why POSIX requires this? At some point POSIX compliance ceased to be a goal of the Cygwin project, so I don't see that as an argument either way. -- Gary R. Van Sickle -- 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/
