←back to thread

CRLF is obsolete and should be abolished

(fossil-scm.org)
422 points km | 2 comments | 13 Oct 24 19:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
moomin ◴[13 Oct 24 20:39 UTC] No.41831394[source]▶
Counterpoint: Unix deciding on a non-standard line ending was always a mistake. It has produced decades of random incompatibility for no particular benefit. CRLF isn’t a convention: it’s two different pieces of the base terminal API. You have no idea how many programs rely on CR and LF working correctly.
replies(5): >>41831757 #>>41832003 #>>41832081 #>>41835025 #>>41835527 #
1. fanf2 ◴[13 Oct 24 21:53 UTC] No.41832003[source]▶
It is a standard line ending. ANSI X3.4-1968 says:

10 LF (Line Feed). A format effector that advances the active position to the same character position on the next line. (Also applicable to display devices.) Where appropriate, this character may have the meaning “New Line” (NL), a format effector that advances the active position to the first character position on the next line. Use of the NL convention requires agreement between sender and recipient of data.

ASCII 1968 - https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20

ASCII 1977 - https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/FIPS/fipspub1-2-197...

replies(1): >>41832611 #
2. wongarsu ◴[13 Oct 24 23:19 UTC] No.41832611[source]▶
The first sentence is exactly what LF is in CRLF, and implies the necessity of CR. CR returns the cursor to the first character of the active line, LF moves it one line down without changing the horizontal position.

The second sentence is the UNIX interpretation of LF doing the equivalent of CRLF. But calling it a standard line ending when it's an alternative meaning defined in the standard as "requires agreement between sender and recipient of data" is a bit of a stretch. It's permissible by the standard, but it's not the default as per the standard