Stephen J. Turnbull writes:
>>>>> "CW" == Christoph Wedler <Christoph.Wedler(a)sap.com> writes:
CW> auto-detect (if the info files are correct) and auto-detect
CW> when saving the buffer means XEmacs' way which is the Unix
CW> file ending.
> Well, that should be fixed.
Agreed. OK, I wait with my patch until this has been fixed.
CW> Thus, I fail to see where "toggling" from nil to crlf is bad.
> Of course, because you don't live where I do: on Unix. Now I have to
> toggle again. That doesn't suck quite as much as the 6 step procedure
> you mentioned, but it's not good.
Well, I also use XEmacs on Unix. The eol type "toggling" there:
a. w/o my change: nil -> nil -> ...
b. w/ my change: nil -> crlf -> cr -> crlf -> ...
Still fail to see why b is worse than a. Toggling from nil to cr would
also be OK with me... (if nil doesn't mean the Unix way ;-))
> Yes, and no. It will be in the next prerelease and in 21.4.6.
CW> Talking of patches, xemacs-patches is again broken. I got no
CW> robot reply for a couple of patches
> No, you don't get a reply. If that was done before, it got broken
> when Jason move the MLs from Tux to SourceForge. Sigh. I'd really
> rather be working on releases than on mailbots.
I can understand that. But given the fact, that XEmacs' former mailbot
(2yrs ago) made senders of mails to xemacs-patches work for /dev/null,
it is probably better to send a mailbot reply. I now know that it is
not again broken...
CW> * "Toggling" Unix -> Dos -> Mac -> ... doesn't seem to be
CW> what people really need.
> More Windows-centric thinking.
No, combined with my cryptic "OK, there could be a variable", my above
sentence meant that button2 should IMHO toggle between 2 eol types (and
these 2 are controlled by the variable) and not all 3 (OK, if we have
that variable, there could also be an option for it) as probably not too
many people work in an environment where all three systems are used. OK,
for all 3 we can have a menu...