On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 20:39 -0500, cnbiz850 wrote: > Maybe I should put it this way. The script I edit is a formated > language (like C). Before it can be executed, the Windows program - > by using its provided editor - somehow processes/compiles it into its > needed proprietary file format. > So your editor is more than just an editor: it is a compiler as well and saves both the ASCII text file and the compiler output. > I think at the time of the processing/compiling, it checks the ASCII > text I put in and verifies that it is in the legal format. So that is > when it complains about the CRLF related problem. > Or more likely, it doesn't recognise the LF as a newline. > Through our discussion here, I take it that because I run the Windows > program through Wine, the newline character I type in is a LF rather > than the required CRLF, then the program complains about it. > Not exactly. The keyboard emits a scan code which MS operating systems keyboard drivers pass to the program as CR and the Linux keyboard driver passes as LF. Most DOS/Windows programs won't recognise LF as a newline, but often treat it as an ordinary non-printing character. If you're using C a further library function ensures that this always matches '\n' on input and that on output '\n' becomes CRLF or LF. Other languages will do something similar. Its actually quite a mess on the MS side, with newline being CR from the keyboard but CRLF when read from a file and always being written as CRLF. > Guess I am more and more inclined that Wine should take the > responsibility in putting in the right newline character. > I'd expect that Wine would handle the conversion of keystrokes but would pass files unchanged. Anything else would cause major problems. Think of the effects if it converted LF to CRLF in an exe or other binary file. IOW it would have to be able to distinguish text files from other file types with 100% accuracy which would be nearly impossible. I'd suggest that your best bet is a simple script like this: #!/bin/sh dos2unix $1 gedit $1 # Substitute your favourite Linux editor here unix2dos $1 The double conversion is a good idea because some Linux editors don't treat CRLF as a simple newline. BTW, you can run a file through unix2dos more than once without damaging it. Another thought: have you looked for a Linux equivalent to your editor/compiler? There may be one. For example, the Parallax STAMP program editor does pretty much what you're describing: it holds program source as a DOS text file but downloads a tokenised form into the STAMP to be run. There is an equivalent Linux development package consisting of a tokeniser and a downloader/debugger. I haven't used it, but I imagine that it uses standard Linux text editors to write programs. Martin
