Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ssbell!mcmi!amperif!unocss!ho@fergvax.unl.edu
From: ho@fergvax.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Trouble compiling flip with TurboC
Message-ID: <1341@unocss.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 89 22:14:01 GMT
References: <1989Aug4.043051.14636@cs.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@unocss.UUCP
Reply-To: ho@fergvax.unl.edu
Followup-To: alt.flame
Lines: 23

From article <1989Aug4.043051.14636@cs.rochester.edu>, by ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap):
> |If ascii had a newline character, then everybody would be the same,
> |but it doesn't 
> |have that - it has a separate line feed and carriage return.
> |
> |C's use of a single newline indicator is an oddity too.
> 
> Sorry to possibly start a flame war, but the Unix convention makes a
> lot of sense. To start off, why have outdated notions about what CR and
> LF do? Those belong to the age of clunky teletypes.  What is really

I'd like to put a V-8 in my VW Rabbit for some extra get-up-and-go, too.
Unfortunately, you have to work with your limitations.  DOS evolved from
CP/M, with its CRLF and ^Z conventions;  as long as DOS is DOS, then those
will have to stay.  It's one thing to add handle I/O to make DOS seem more
like Unix;  it's another to make fundamental changes to the file structure.

I agree that, theoretically, the \n convention makes more sense /in new
installations or operating systems/.  But it never makes sense to try to
change the structure of an OS without rewriting it and giving it a new name,
IMHO.  Flame off  :-)
---
	... Michael Ho, University of Nebraska