[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4 |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:45:45 +0200 |
Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:
...
> | +dnl See if CR is the EOL marker. If not, remove any EOL-related
> | +dnl ^M bytes and escape any remaining ones. If so, just use mv.
>
> If CR is _not_ the EOL marker, then how would CR appear at the end of the
> line? Where are we doing input into $tmp/subs1.awk that could create a
> spurious CR if the platform does not use CR? And if CR is not EOL, then
> do we really need to escape intermediate CR rather than treating it as a
> literal character?
Before writing the patch, I wondered about that too, and did a little
archaeology, but didn't find any good rationale, though I didn't look
very hard.
> And according to this patch, if CR _is_ the EOL marker, then just using mv
> works. So why not use mv unconditionally?
Assuming the existing CR-conversion code (not just for EOL markers) was
necessary, I thought it best to minimize changes for the common EOL==NL case.
- carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Working os/2 configuratie, Elbert Pol, 2008/04/05
- Re: Working os/2 configuratie, Eric Blake, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Jim Meyering, 2008/04/05
- Re: carriage return line endings vs. literal ^M in status.m4, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/04/05