From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: decode_eol and inconsistent EOL Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:21:57 +0300 Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <1438-Thu25Apr2002222156+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1019762660 8100 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2002 19:24:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-emacs@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 170oqp-00026W-00 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:24:20 +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 170oqr-00039n-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:24:21 -0400 Original-Received: from freya.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.14]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 170oot-000339-00 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 15:22:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Zaretsky ([80.230.2.40]) by freya.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 2.9.3.2) with ESMTP id BJE02943; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 22:22:07 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: gildea@stop.mail-abuse.org X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-Reply-To: (message from Stephen Gildea on Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:29:05 -0400) Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:947 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:947 > From: Stephen Gildea > Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 13:29:05 -0400 > > I'd like to see a cleverer setting of the eol_type. If almost all of > the lines have a particular eol style, use that instead of falling back > to CODING_EOL_LF after a single bad line. That kind of heuristic is bound to trip some people, I think. It's difficult to set a threshold that will suit everyone. It's also difficult for users to set such a threshold, if we give them an option. Can't your problem be solved with "C-x RET c dos RET" before the command that gives you the trouble?