Sorry, maybe I was unclear. I am not the least bit offended (though
maybe a bit frustrated). "By fiat" did not refer to any process or
personal problem, I meant it at the code level, refering to the proposed
system wide change of application semantics "behind their backs". 

Obviously, though I respect those that expressed their opinions, I
disagree that this change is well thought out. Despite there being some
good reasons for it, in the balance, it is IMO, simply bad design.

I have stated before that if I am the only one that believes so, I will
yield, but it seems there is still quite a bit of misunderstanding of
what the issue is about, so I still have hope that my point of view will
be actually understood. Heck, maybe even accepted. BTW, at least two
others have at some point or another expressed some sympathy to my
arguments - 

Matej Kosik (obviously partial qoutes)
> I am perfectly content with the current status.
...
> But I would not like to spoil
> Squeak with this work around (put it there).

Ned Konz
> * non-translating text (this should be the default as it is now, I 
> think):

BTW, I will note that technical judgements are never made by a vote -
decisions that affect technical issues are sometimes made by vote, but
that is merely a political constraint. That N people think something is
good does not make it so. Think what would happen if the worlds
programmers were asked to vote on the one and only future language -
we'd be stuck with VB/Java/C#/C forever... 

While it is possible that the decision on this will be made politically,
I think we should all hope that it won't come to that, but that reasoned
discussion will bring one side or the other to "see the light".

Daniel

Jimmie Houchin <jhouchin at texoma.net> wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > That's the thing - I don't agree that you really want to define any such
> > policy across all applications, by fiat. 
> 
> It isn't by fiat, its merely a change to default behaviour on a well 
> discussed subject with both sides expressing their views. From that 
> understanding a consensus opinion has been formed with only (to my 
> recollection) one dissenting opinion expressed. That's far from fiat.
> 
> _And_ its only for applications which choose to use the _default_ 
> behaviour. Those applications which do not choose (for whatever reason) 
> to use the default behaviour are free to do so.
> 
> This is a well thought out and well thought of (by most, who expressed 
> an opinion) default behaviour. We understand what you are saying. There 
> just happens to be a disagreement. That is unfortunate, but it would be 
> more unfortunate if in situations like this if the Squeak community were 
> to become immobilized.
> 
> Today you're the dissenter, tommorow someone else. No one need get 
> offended or upset. Its the way it works.
> 
> Defaults aren't permanent. As long as the change is well thought out, 
> consequences understood and a majority agree, it is not a heinous thing 
> to change one. Sometimes it would be heinous to not change one.
> 
> And by its nature changing a default changes everything that uses the 
> default. Its not a fiat, its a design decision.
> 
> Jimmie Houchin
> 
> 
> > What I am suggesting is that we
> > actually implement the specific policies that make sense for different
> > applications. FileList is the obvious one. If that's what makes sense,
> > we can change every single application currently in the image to use
> > CRLFFS. As long as applications that do conversions make it explicit in
> > their code.
> > 
> > What's the improvement? people get the behavior they want in
> > applications. I thought that's what you were after. Just to clarify, I
> > am proposing to implement the change suggested in in all interfaces for
> > file opening. Concretely, this means in FileDirectory, too.
> > 
> > Daniel