+ 1

Stef

On 8 sept. 06, at 12:35, Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> 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 -
>