On 11/17/2009 11:15 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> 2009/11/17 Jimmie Houchin<j.squeak at cyberhaus.us>:
>    
>> On 11/17/2009 8:47 AM, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>      
>>> I never talked about control chars. We were talking about line ending
>>> conversions. A typical scenario is needing to edit ini files for real users
>>> that are stored in a server. I need to support users with Windows and Mac.
>>> And I want to leave the files as they need them. The best way to do that is
>>> with the Cuis editor. Then, I'm in control.
>>>        
>> You are doing this from Squeak?
>>
>> It would seem to me to be more natural for the editing in Squeak to be of a
>> single consistent line ending and then the export to your server into the
>> line ending type required there.
>>
>> Neither Mac nor Windows or anyone to my knowledge desire/require any line
>> ending outside of their native default line ending. So I fail to see why
>> this would be important in the editor and done better in the editor than in
>> the export mechanism saving the edited text to a file whether local or
>> network?
>>      
> You simply never worked with cygwin under windows, nor transfered
> files edited in windows to QNX et vice et versa.
>    

That is true, I have not. I had not thought of foreign entities within a 
system like that.

>> And in a previous email you wrote:
>> On 11/16/2009 4:10 PM, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>>      
>>> I think you got this one wrong. In Cuis, in a workspace you can tell the
>>> line ending of each line (cr, lf or crlf) and you can actually type all
>>> three. Please try it! Use<Enter>,<Shift-Enter>  and<Cmd/Alt-Enter>.
>>> This way you can edit a text file, and keep it consistent. Otherwise, if
>>> you edit an existing file that was edited with a Unix or Windows editor
>>> and add CRs to it it will use more than one convention, without you
>>> realizing. Showing all in the same way is misleading. Different Strings
>>> should look different in the editor!
>>>        
>> I still fail to see a purpose in having more than one line ending type in a
>> single document or file. It isn't natural.
>>
>> And if only one type of line ending in a document/file/string.
>> Editing (internal) line endings does not necessarily equal export or
>> external line endings.
>>
>> If you have a purpose for multiple line endings in a single
>> file/document/object/... I would like to know what that is.
>>
>> If not, then it would seem that simply having the ability to export to a
>> platform explicit version (regardless of the platform of current use) is a
>> valuable thing. But should be an explicit decision not a default one.
>>
>> Jimmie
>>      
> It's not the desire of any one, it is just reallity. Simple modern
> code editors (string editors) can deal with mixed line endings and
> most tools won't care, this is just transparent, and we can have that
> in Squeak to, it's easy and cheap.
>
> For example, plenty of squeak code did contain line feeds, and that
> did not hurt... (except when the ugly boxes were displayed).
> If we have applications with strict requirements, then no problem, we
> will continue to do the convert from/edit/convert to cycle.
>    

Oh I understand the reality. I have dealt with it for last 16+ years. 
Macs handled it gracefully and Windows it kind of depended on the app. :)

I believe it is important to be able handle ugly malformed 
mixed-line-ending items well. But does it really have to stay that way. 
Can't we clean it, make it consistent? That is my question. When we find 
the world in an ugly condition, must we really leave it that way? And 
when we edit it how do we contribute to that ugliness? How do we choose 
to which of the line ending mess we are contributing?

It has been a while since I had the privilege of using Squeak, but now 
that you mention it I do remember the ugly boxes. And I always wondered 
why we had those.

> Qui peut le plus peut le moins.
>
> Nicoals
>    
I had to Google translate that. But I like it. :)

Jimmie