3 ms·
To be more precise, they're Unix line endings. So yeah, I'd consider it a bug if it didn't support what has been the standard line ending format since the 60's.
by swebs 8y ago
To be more precise, they're Unix line endings. So yeah, I'd consider it a bug if it didn't support what has been the standard line ending format since the 60's.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago> So yeah, I'd consider it a bug if it didn't support what has been the standard line ending format since the 60's. The standard line ending format in the '60s, which was the height of the mainframe era, would probably have been the newline character in IBM's EBCIDC encoding, which differs from the value used for ASCII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newline). Unix didn't really start taking off until around the early '80s IIRC. Windows properly supported the newline format for its platform of lineage (CP/M + DOS) which also didn't start taking off until the early '80s. Not sure that Unix has any real claim to precedence here.
- mark-r 8y agoThe standard line ending of the '70s was CR/LF, because the printers commonly used as interactive terminals required them both. I wonder how that worked on the first Unix systems?
- cesarb 8y ago> I wonder how that worked on the first Unix systems? Probably the same way it still works on today's Unix systems: it converts NL to CR+NL on output. See the manpage for the stty command: Output settings: [-]onlcr translate newline to carriage return-newline
- JdeBP 8y agoThe standard in the 1960s, USAS X3.4-1968, actually prescribed both forms. But (in §4.1.2.2) it "strongly recommended" that people "use CR and LF to obtain the effect of New Line".