I have read most of these posts with a mixture of sadness and amusement. Sadness because people get so upset over something like this and amusement for the same reason.
Starting from the begging, I open my text editor and type in my text. I save it and magically an EOF character is appended to the end of the file. I did not ask for it to be there, there was no dialog box or warning that it was going to happen. It is an artifact of how the system work. When I open that text file, I only see my text, the EOF has been stripped from my file. Again, it is how the system is designed work. Making system A talk to system B is all about data manipulation. After all they are two different beasts with different expectations and so the program that is designed to communicate between them should seamlessly and silently handle these differences for the user. For example, an EOF is a valid character on system A but not on system B so if reading a file on A and sending to B I would not send the EOF. I might replace it instead with what system B expects to mark the EOF (which if my faulty early morning memory serves, if you are using a terminal program to transfer a file you have to hit CTRL-C, or something, to let the Model T know the EOF has been reached. In effect you are mapping control characters form system A to system B. Years ago, I wrote a program to drip-feed GCode to a CNC machine whose controller had some particular requirements in both the data itself and handshaking. So, I read in a text file and ‘manipulated’ the data so it could be sent to the controller without incident. There were no check boxes to not ‘manipulate’ the data as that was one of the main purposes of the program and to not do so meant most likely locking up the CNC controller whilst cutting a part, which is BAD. Carrying an ideal like “don’t manipulate the data” past any sort of logical consideration is encroaching on the border of zealotry. Jeff_Birt From: M100 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of John R. Hogerhuis Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [M100] Weird "bug" with TS-DOS 4.0 (ROM version) "That places the obligation on the wrong party." It's not a legal issue. It's just functionality. Arguing on other turf (FTP, or checksum algorithms, etc) is to totally ignore the issue. But really, you're arguing on the basis of principle that I agree with in principle, but in real life an engineer weighs the issues and can set ANY principle aside. Yes my decision will violate your assumptions in a hypothetical scenario. I guess.
