From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,db1e3158636a30f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-24 17:32:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <ajebhb$ndl$01$1@news.t-online.com> <uk7mt18ig.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <ajgrf9$uo2$05$1@news.t-online.com> <ulm77svbe.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <ajrisv$lc9$03$1@news.t-online.com> <uznvh1snf.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <aju1tq$qna$07$1@news.t-online.com> <um7ptk6238ap6f@corp.supernews.com>
Subject: Re: Fill string with multiple lines from standard_input
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <FAV99.1691$Fc4.326327@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:34:51 +1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.54.95.80
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz
X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1030235557 210.54.95.80 (Sun,
 25 Aug 2002 12:32:37 NZST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 12:32:37 NZST
Organization: Xtra
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28379
Date: 2002-08-25T12:34:51+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:um7ptk6238ap6f@corp.supernews.com...

> Probably your problem is that the OS is eating the <CR>s from Standard
> Input, and Ada never sees them. I would expect that you would find this
> behavior with any file type that read from the Standard Input handle.

Strangely enough, that was the hypothetical question I've proposed
in another thread (called "best way to handle long strings")

> In the mail handling code I've written, I simply assume that the <CR>s
> are where they are supposed to be by the RFCs, and put them back in as
> needed.

Which pretty much means that they are not needed at all.
After all, if you can look at the code and insert missing
line-breaks as you see fit ... obviously they have little
to do with the original code. They must be redundant
or, otherwise, you would not be able to figure out where
to place the missing ones.