Re: [Libusb-devel] >=autoconf-2.63 no grokmultiline AC_CONFIG_FILES?

[Orin E. <ori...@gm...>]

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Xiaofan Chen <xia...@gm...> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Michael Plante
> <mic...@gm...> wrote:
> > Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> >>> Do we really care about Notepad?
> >
> > It would seem I'm repeating myself multiple times in this thread, but
> having
> > to do so here is a bit absurd, given that you quoted the answer to your
> own
> > question:  yes.  Also, at least at one point, Orin did, too:
> >
> >
> http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libsub-1-0-for-Windows-MSVC-tp6305p6415.html
> >
>
> Orin mentioned that "Yes, me too.  Often for things like bat and inf
> files!"
> Take note the "bat and inf files". I would do that too.
>


Actually, it's my first choice if I have file of unknown type as it's
relatively benign if you give it a binary file.  It hasn't been the case
when I've accidentally used more in a Linux shell window - flashing text if
I'm lucky - invisible text if I'm not!

As for the .ds?, .vcproj and .sln files, these are _opaque_ files that you
shouldn't be poking around in.  Sure, we happen to know that some are text
with <CR><LF> line endings.  IMO, whatever the OS, this SHOULD NOT be
changed.  You SHOULD NOT be editing them with a tool that does not preserve
the <CR><LF>.  They should be treated as binary files, but since we know
they are text with <CR><LF> line endings, I don't see a problem with
treating them as text files that always have <CR><LF> line endings _as an
optimization_.

As I recall, the problem I had was that git gave me files with <LF> line
endings, Visual Studio didn't care, but wrote out lines with <CR><LF>
endings and then Peter complained when a patch had some <CR>s in it.

BTW, I'm not a fan of <CR><LF> line endings, so please don't interpret the
above as such.

Orin.