This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: Similar Bash 3.1.18 CR/LF Problem
- From: "Williams, Gerald S \(Jerry\)" <gsw at agere dot com>
- To: <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 17:48:59 -0400
- Subject: RE: Similar Bash 3.1.18 CR/LF Problem
- Reply-to: The Cygwin-Talk Maiming List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
I wrote:
>>> Seriously, I'd have a hard time believing that supporting
>>> <CR><LF> endings would noticably impact performance if it
>>> were done as part of upstream BASH.
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> You haven't been paying attention, it seems.
...
> I was specifically referring to your assertion that you would have a
> hard time believing that CRLF handling would impact performance.
E-mail always makes things sound more confrontational
than you intend them. Got to keep that in mind...
Let me rephrase that:
<RETRO time="2006/10/04 13:06:19">
I would expect that any CRLF handling patch actually
accepted in upstream BASH would not be allowed to
noticeably impact performance.
</RETRO>
No, that's not entirely right. It still presumes that
there's no platform-specific code upstream, plus it
still has some confrontational language.
OK, here's another try:
<RETRO time="2006/10/04 13:06:19">
I would expect that any generic cross-platform CRLF
handling patch actually accepted in upstream BASH
would not noticeably impact performance. Of course,
since I'm only really interested in patches that
affect Linux as well, my viewpoint may be biased.
</RETRO>
OK, that's closer, but it's getting a bit difficult
to parse. Plus the wishy-washiness rather undermines
the point. How about...
Oh, nevermind.
:-)