I am aware. My point is that this isn't consistent with your argument about "UTF-8", which appears to be something like "specifying UTF-8 means to convert to UTF-8, therefore specifying `n should mean to convert to `n, but it means to convert to `r`n, and this is confusing". If `n should mean to convert to `n, then `r should mean to convert to `r.
No, you are just twisting or misinterpreting my words.That is exactly my point.
"Strict" logic as opposed to... loose logic? That's just not logic. Arguing a point without logic is futile. You repeatedly bring this up as some kind of explanation, but all I'm getting is that there is little logic behind your opinions, so I will not understand or agree with them.You are biased toward strict logic.
If the purpose of this topic is to drive development of the language or program, both of which are essentially constructs of logic, arguments must be backed by logic. But as I've been saying, I'm not convinced that this topic actually ever had a practical purpose.
I may be willfully missing or ignoring your point, because the only way I can understand "think like a non-programmer" is as "think irrationally". There is no structure which I can use to understand someone else's irrational thought process. It is pointless to discuss.I think you are missing my point: it has a lot to do with NOT thinking like a programmer.
I think your logic is failing (or absent).I hope you are not suggesting ..., because, you know, writing is the inverse of reading.
FileRead(path, "UTF-8 `n") reads from file, converts UTF-8 to UTF-16 and `r`n to `n.
FileAppend(text, path, "UTF-8 `n") writes to file, converts UTF-16 to UTF-8 and `n to `r`n.
Reading is inverted to become writing. Both conversions are inverted accordingly.
FileRead
`n results in `n or `r`n depending on whether you are reading or writing
FileAppend
`n results in `n or `r`n depending on whether you are reading or writing
FileOpen
`n results in `n or `r`n depending on whether you are reading or writing
Thus the results are consistent (not that the Options parameter ever claimed to be about the results).