lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: #!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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.341 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site