RE: mode line eol char indication

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Drew Adams writes:

 > What's trivial for the implementation shouldn't be behind
 > characterizing this line ending to the user as more trivial. Why
 > would a user care which is easier to implement?

Because the trivial line endings never get screwed up.  Nontrivial
line endings cause no end of pain (eg, inappropriate conversion of
line endings causes 100% of the lines of a text file to differ from
its previous revision, and irrecoverable data corruption in binary
files (ie, where CR and LF have semantics other than "line ending").

 > If we're trying to indicate the _line ending characters_, then lets just say
 > what they are: C-j, C-m, or C-j C-m.

Those are commands.  Users almost *never* use those as self-inserting
characters.  ^J, LF, NL, \n, OK (my preference is LF), but not C-j,
please.