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 To start off, why have outdated notions about what CR and 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