RE: binary files bad idea? why?

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Friday, July 2, 2004 at 12:34:42 (-0700), Paul Sander wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: binary files bad idea? why?
>
> >--- Forwarded mail from Greg Woods:
> 
> >It is literally _impossible_ to manually resolve (with any degree of
> >correctness) any three way merge with conflicts in any ``binary'' file,
> >regardless of whether it has been encoded as text or not.
> 
> It IS possible, using a tools that understand the content of the file.

Paul you sure like to split hairs and spread confusion to the masses,
and far more than you admit to doing.

I thought we had agreed a half dozen years ago ore more that the
definition of "binary file" as the phrase is usually used in this forum
means "binary opaque file".  I thought you'd at least account for this
interpretation if I used double quotes, but clearly you'd rather debate
meaningless nonsense regardless.

I.e. it is not possible, by definition, to resolve merge conflicts in
any ``binary'' file.  Period.

-- 
                                                Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098                  VE3TCP            RoboHack <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>          Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>