Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!fmeed1!wehr From: wehr@fmeed1.UUCP (Bruce Wehr) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Why does 'stevie' mask the 8th bit ? Message-ID: <5909@fmeed1.UUCP> Date: 20 Mar 90 16:10:29 GMT References: <1581@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <3052@auspex.auspex.com> Organization: Ford Electronics Division, Dearborn MI Lines: 25 In article <3052@auspex.auspex.com>, guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > >There are usually good reasons for masking the eighth bit, > > No, there aren't. Yes, there are. The one point I haven't seen yet is the fact that *real* vi masks the 8th bit. If you're writing a clone, you do your best to do *exactly* what the original does ... not matter how stupid it might be. If I was writing a clone to some 'standard' command (I know there's no such thing - that's not the point), I'd try my best to duplicate it's behavior - even the bugs. If I don't, I'm risking breaking someones scripts or something - and I'll get flamed for that. I'm all for improving things - as long as new features are added, and none of the original behavior is modified. But you also can no longer call yourself a clone of the original. Maybe 'new and improved' would be approproate. Yes ... move forward ... don't burn bridges behind you ... and make sure everyone knows that there dealing with something different ... everyone is happy ... (naw, but it sounded good :-) -- Bruce Wehr (wehr%dptc.decnet@srlvx0.srl.ford.com) (...!mailrus!sharkey!fmeed1!wehr) (wehr%fmeed1.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu) Ford Motor Company - Electronics Division 17000 Rotunda Drive, ETC Room LN081, Dearborn, Michigan 48121 (313)845-3039