Re: include dos2unix/unix2dos in coreutils ?

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Actually, dos2unix (the one I have, anyway) *does* do a few things
   that aren't so trivially done with sed. For one, it is in-place
   (unless told otherwise), and has --keepdate. In-place is awkward to
   do with sed.

It is very easy to do with sed, just pass --in-place to sed.

   Wow, that was a TERRIBLE example! ;-) I've used dos2unix enough to
   be annoyed by its lack of pervasiveness, but I don't know that I've
   *ever* used dirname (maybe 'basename', and only in scripts). To use
   your argument, dirname (and basename) is a simple hack that can be
   written as a trivial bash substitution. :-) Does that mean dirname
   should not be in coreutils?

You missed the point completely.  If you compare dos2unix to dirname,
dos2unix has far fewer scenarios of use.  ~15 years of having used
Unix like systems on a daily basis, I have yet to come to a situation
where I would actually need dos2unix as a seperate program, where
dirname, basename, tac, head, and what not are infact useful.  And I
suspect that this is the same for the majority of users.

What next? HTML to text, and text to HTML conversion programs in
coreutils?  This would probobly be more useful than dos2unix...