Historical question: LF vs. CR\LF in text files

[Paul S. Sawyer]

In article <7581 at tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma at tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes:
>...
>I have used several systems that went the single character route using the
>Carriage Return. This is probably the most sensible because input conversion
>is not necessary. Also standard typewriter practice is that the carriage
>return operation (either key or lever on a manual typewriter (remember those?))
>would also advance the line, but yet line advance could be independently
>performed (with the knob on the end of the carriage).
>
>I know that the net is full of UNIX-myopic people, but UNIX was not first nor
>did it make the best move on this one.

In the UNIX convention, LF is output as CR/LF, or the printer is set to
do CR/LF when it receives a LF;  This makes overstriking easy on printers with
a limited set of control codes.  (e.g., "bold <CR>bold <CR>bold" or
"_________ <CR>underline" )

But if CR were translated CR/LF on output, or the printer were to 
interpret CR as CR/LF, this flexibility is lost.  (The printers I'm thinking
of do not handle backspacing or reverse index/upline well if at all.)

Since these translations are usually transparent to the user, I think UNIX
DID do OK on this.  (Although I'll admit to the myopia.  B-)
-- 
Paul S. Sawyer              uunet!unh!unhtel!paul     paul at unhtel.UUCP
UNH Telecommunications        attmail!psawyer       p_sawyer at UNHH.BITNET
Durham, NH  03824-3523      VOX: +1 603 862 3262    FAX: +1 603 862 2030