3.9 Oddities
Bert Freudenberg
bert at freudenbergs.de
Fri Sep 8 10:35:41 UTC 2006
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 -
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|