Writing a Carriage Return in Unicode

[Steve Howell]

On Nov 21, 12:12 am, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:22:22 -0800, Scott David Daniels wrote:
>
> > If you've actually typed on a physical typewriter, you know that moving
> > the carriage back is a distinct operation from rolling the platen
> > forward;
>
> I haven't typed on a physical typewriter for nearly a quarter of a
> century.
>
> If you've typed on a physical typewriter, you'll know that to start a new
> page, you have to roll the platen forward until the page ejects, then
> move the typewriter guide forward to leave space, then feed a new piece
> of paper into the typewriter by hand, then roll the platen again until
> the page is under the guide, then push the guide back down again. That's
> FIVE distinct actions, and if you failed to do them, you would type but
> no letters would appear on the (non-existent) page. Perhaps we should
> specify that text files need a five-character sequence to specify a new
> page too?
>
> > both operations are accomplished when you push the carriage
> > back using the bar, but you know they are distinct.  Hell, MIT even had
> > "line starve" character that moved the cursor up (or rolled the platen
> > back).
> > </rant>
>
> > Lots of people talk about "dos-mode files" and "windows files" as if
> > Microsoft got it wrong; it did not -- Unix made up a convenient fiction
> > and people went along with it. (And, yes, if Unix had been there first,
> > their convention was, in fact, better).
>
> This makes zero sense. If Microsoft "got it right", then why is the Unix
> convention "convenient" and "better"? Since we're not using teletype
> machines, I would say Microsoft is now using an *inconvenient* fiction.
>
> --
> Steven

It's been a long time since I have typed on a physical typewriter as
well, but I still vaguely remember all the crazy things I had to do to
get the tab key to produce a predictable indentation on the paper
output.

I agree with Steven that "\r\n" is completely insane.  If you are
going to couple character sets to their legacy physical
implementations, you should also have a special extra character to dot
your i's and cross your t's.  Apparently neither Unix or Microsoft got
that right.  I mean, think about it, dotting the i is a distinct
operation from creating the undotted "i." ;)