Rich Warren schrieb:

> How often is removing <lf> an issue.

Often enough to not be done automatically. It took editors a lot of time 
to become binary-safe, most still are not. You also need UI to show 
which line end convention is active, and you need to provide conversion 
methods.

> How did the <lf>'s get into the code base to begin with? 

They were invisible.

> Unless there's a strong reason to the contrary, the editors should 
> follow the old CS advice. Be generous in what you accept, be strict in 
> what you transmit (in this case, in what you save).

Indeed. Another important principle is that a visualization is invalid 
if it hides important details. The code editor *must* show exactly what 
it is editing. I agree that the LFs are ugly, but its way better than 
dropping them silently.

> You have yet to convince me 

I don't have to convince you of anything. You have to convince us to 
change the status quo. A good implementation is very convincing ;-)

> To me, this seems like a poor design decision. I think there will be a 
> lot of unforeseen consequences (for example, making Squeak incompatible 
> with windows text files). 

It's as compatible as it ever was. The behavior is exactly the same as 
in 3.8, but you now *see* that something is wrong.

If in 3.8 you edit a windows CRLF file it appears fine. You press 
return, which inserts a CR. You save the file, and *boom*, a wrong line 
end in your file that other software may trip about. Like notepad. And 
you saw *nothing* in the Squeak editor.

- Bert -