|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 12:58:48 -0400 From: "Jonathan I. Kamens" <jik@cam.ov.com> To: tytso@MIT.EDU Cc: krb5-bugs@MIT.EDU, bug-zephyr@MIT.EDU, bugs@MIT.EDU, bug-moira@MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <9409081648.AA02739@pinata.MIT.EDU> (tytso@MIT.EDU) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 12:48:53 +0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> Is the printing of the \r actually causing a problem, or is this only an aesthetics thing? It is my belief that printing the \r is actually the right thing. I often use com_err programs in "terminals" that display control characters, e.g., in Emacs shell windows and while running "script". The extra ^M's printed by com_err programs clutter up the output in such cases and are ugly to boot. I understand your argument that com_err should print the ^M's so that the right thing happens whenever possible, but I disagree with it, because it's a gross hack which is not, in my opinion, consistent with the UNIX philosophy. Tools should do their own jobs, and nothing else. There are a slew of other standard UNIX programs which arguably should print ^M's if com_err does, and they don't. Can you name *one* other UNIX program which prints "\r\n" or "\n\r" instead of just "\n" for the reason you described? It seems to me that applications which are overly concerned about the possibility that they might screw up the tty (and applications which mess with the tty usually know that they do) should put "\r\n" instead of "\n" in their com_err messages themselves. Incidentally, \n\r vs. \r\n does make a difference, in my opinion, because at least when it's \r\n like it's supposed to be, all the ^M's are at the end of lines and easily ignored. When it's \n\r, ^M's end up at beginnings of lines, which looks really gross when they're visible. jik
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |