From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs
Subject: Re: decode_eol and inconsistent EOL
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:08:33 +0300
Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <2950-Mon29Apr2002220833+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020429074505.22112A-100000@is> <200204291259.g3TCxi119424@rum.cs.yale.edu>  <3405-Mon29Apr2002210031+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200204291811.g3TIBxA21193@rum.cs.yale.edu>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1020107563 8723 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2002 19:12:43 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:12:43 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: gnu-emacs-bug@gnu.org
Return-path: <bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 172GZn-0002Ga-00
	for <gnu-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:12:43 +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 172GZd-0002x3-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:12:33 -0400
Original-Received: from heimdall.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.17])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 172GWC-0002k7-00
	for <gnu-emacs-bug@gnu.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:09:01 -0400
Original-Received: from Zaretsky ([80.230.2.40])
	by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.54-GA)
	with ESMTP id BJF69600;
	Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:08:58 +0300 (IDT)
Original-To: monnier+gnu/emacs/bug@rum.cs.yale.edu
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-Reply-To: <200204291811.g3TIBxA21193@rum.cs.yale.edu>
	(monnier+gnu/emacs/bug@rum.cs.yale.edu)
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: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
	the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-gnu-emacs/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:1030
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:1030

> From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs/bug@rum.cs.yale.edu>
> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:11:59 -0400
> 
> Why is it better to use unix-eol rather than dos-eol when
> the file has:
> - at least 3 CRLF.
> - no LF without a preceding CR.
> - some lone CRs after the first three lines.

Because unix-eol (a.k.a. no EOL conversion) shows you the exact
contents of the file, without hiding parts of it.

I'm not saying that this is _always_ better, but I certainly don't see
why the change you suggest would make a better behavior.  Each one
has its merits and demerits, I think.