From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: decode_eol and inconsistent EOL
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:40:07 -0600 (MDT)
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <200204291840.g3TIe7306365@aztec.santafe.edu>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020429074608.22112B-100000@is>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020105784 4795 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2002 18:43:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:43:04 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: gildea@stop.mail-abuse.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, akochoi@shaw.ca
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 172G76-0001FE-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:43:04 +0200
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 172GAy-000537-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:47:04 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 172G6o-0000ji-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:42:46 -0400
Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 172G4G-0000V0-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:40:08 -0400
Original-Received: from aztec.santafe.edu (aztec [192.12.12.49])
	by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id g3TIe7a21633;
	Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:40:07 -0600 (MDT)
Original-Received: (from rms@localhost)
	by aztec.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g3TIe7306365;
	Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:40:07 -0600 (MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: aztec.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@aztec using -f
Original-To: eliz@is.elta.co.il
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020429074608.22112B-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:49:34 +0300 (IDT))
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:3420
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:3420

    Basically, we are talking about two possible classes of cases here:

      - binary files

      - text files produced by broken programs

    In the first case, what Emacs does now is the Right Thing.

Would the other behavior really be much less right,
in the case of a binary file?