[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/06/27]
On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 11:04:51AM +0100, Martin Ebourne wrote: > Of course, if Acorn had used \n for linebreaks instead of \r then the > code above would trivially produce \r\n and everything would have > matched up with both unix & dos so much better. \r\n makes sense to me as a newline, historically. Its a direct translation of the commands to the line printer. Move the head to the first column. Move down one row. \n\r makes sense in the same way. \n I can understand for Unix as by the early 70s working on displays rather than line printers is more common and its no longer necessary to give explicit commands. Though why they changed it... maybe they just wanted to save one character per line? But why use \r? \n I get, "move down one line" and moving back to the first column is implicit. But \r... "move back to the first column" and going to the next line is implicit? Doesn't seem right. Unless, of course, they didn't consider 015 to be "carriage return" and 012 to be "newline"? -- Michael G Schwern schwern@xxxxx.xxx http://www.pobox.com/~schwern ROCKS FALL! EVERYONE DIES! http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05032002.shtmlThere's stuff above here
Generated at 00:00 on 28 Jun 2005 by mariachi 0.52