Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:46:43 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: #!perl - alternative path to script interpreters - patch to 2.2 |
| |
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Tim Smith wrote:
> I can see how one can make a good argument against \r\n as a line terminator > (the only argument I see *for* it are that it's the way lines are terminated > in most, if not all, line-oriented internet protocols, such as FTP, SMTP, > POP, NNTP, and HTTP, which was probably not a consideration with CP/M), but > what's the argument against \r alone? I see no logical reason to prefer \n > over \r other than Unix is older than Mac and so it would have been nice for > Apple to have picked \n for compatibility (since I can see no reason to > prefer \r over \n).
ASCII (for the \n variant). Terminal may be smart enough to do carriage return upon the line feed request. Doing the opposite is bogus. \r==CR, \n==LF. As for CP/M choice - I seriously suspect that it was carried from R*-11 family (and from general DEC conventions). DARPA used TENEX and TOPS-20. I suspect that it can be traced back to TTY driver in sufficiently early EXEC. It was logical on dumb terminals.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |