Re: RFE: honor 'eol' setting regardless of 'binary' flag.

John Little wrote:
> If you're not writing the file, then it's not a problem, and if you are making changes, and it is a text file, why not write the last eol?
>
> Regards, John Little
>
---
Because it is modifying/changing the file w/o the user asking it to do so.
Such behavior is says that the designers know better than the users how
files should be constructed, rather than letting the user decide.

That is distasteful.

The change wouldn't DISABLE the ability for those who want the behavior
to turn it own. Indeed, I might turn it on by default, for most of the
files
I edit don't have this problem, but I think it is wrong to modify the file
by default and force users into compliance.

It should have been optional from the start.



Eric Pruitt wrote:
>
>
> I am opposed to this change because Vim is primarily a _text_ editor,
> and its defaults should reflect as much.
----
Where is it written that the last line of a file needs a uselss linefeed?

I don't have a line feed at the end of a physical page when typing.

I remove the paper. It's called end of file.

Editors were supposed to mimic this physical behavior. There is no
analog to requiring the user to hit LF at the end of a paper or a file.


> Certain text editors
> (*cough*sublime*cough*) default to not adding an EOL at the end of
> files. If honoring the EOL were the default behavior, then I would have
> to manually verify (or be prompted every time) whether or not every text
> file I edit has a proper EOL at the end of the file.
Did you read the option? It says the default would be for that option
to ship 'on'...
and work w/text. It doesn't say you _couldn't_ have the current
behavior by setting it
off. Why is it that you think I would impose a lack of choice on you?

Oh, you support doing so to others. I see. That's called projection,
but is not reality.
Just because you support other having no choice in this matter, doesn't
mean I would
require others (including you) to abide by my choice. I find that
illogical.

What is the problem with making the option work in text mode is what?

Whether it is default or not is minor compared to it simply being
broken/not working
in text mode. Default or not, any user that wants other than the
default will have it
in their <X>rc file if the option was a working one.


> I edit
> files-from-users-whose-editors-don't-add-EOL far more often that I edit
> binary files with Vim, and I imagine that's the situation for most Vim
> users.
>
---
The file I edited was a text config that was of a "fixed" size -- i.e.
adding a character
to the end corrupted it. But that is still irrelevant to making the option
work or why making changes to a user's file should be done w/o their
permission.

Can you explain why you would be against the option working ?

Or are you just arguing about the default (which you could change on your
machines -- or I could on mine), which I argue for being "not changing
things (anything) "for the user" w/o them doing it or wanting it.

Imagine if vim always converted your file to have CRLF in it because it
was "safer"...
And that there was no way to turn it off because the option was broken
in 'text mode'.
I don't think you would be pleased.

Doing it for a user w/o their choice or buy-in and making it impossible
for them to
have a choice is noxious, IMO.

I.e. if you support my right to have a choice, I can support yours (in
general).









--
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_use" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_use+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.