- Bug #236
openFix CRFL
0%
Description
I noticed that the CRFL ought to have been CRLF (the LF part meaning "line feed". But while checking for a published standard on this I read here: https://medium.com/@andrekardec/fixing-expected-linebreaks-to-be-lf-but-found-crlf-in-vscode-2023-42d7c518e71d ...that:
Windows uses the Carriage Return (CR) and Line Feed (LF) characters together as the EOL sequence. This is because early computer systems used mechanical teletypewriters that required both CR and LF to move the print head back to the left margin and advance the paper to the next line.
Unix-based systems, on the other hand, including Linux and macOS, use only the Line Feed (LF) character as the EOL sequence — Unix was influenced by the use of electronic typewriters, which only required the LF character to move to the next line.
Oh.
Well then let's do the UNIX thing and use "LF" only.
I set this as "urgent" only because it is so simple to do, yet removes both a typo and a Windows artifact!
Updated by Joseph Potvin 13 days ago
Corroborated here: https://hatchjs.com/expected-linebreaks-to-be-lf-but-found-crlf/
"LF is the standard line break character on Unix-based systems, while CRLF is the standard line break character on Windows-based systems."
For visual separation let's use: LF
But I'm curious now. When and why did we add that? In my thesis, an example looks like this, with no CRLF or CRFL:
"input_conditions": [
{
"sentence":[
{
"determiner":: "The"
},
{
"noun": "capacity"
},
{
"description": "of this box"
},
{
"past_participle_verb": "used"
},
{
"predicate_verb": "is"
},
{
"attribute": ">=half"
}
],
"scenarios": [
"00",
"01",
"01"
}
},
Updated by Joseph Potvin 13 days ago
A related issue: https://xalgorithms.redminepro.net/issues/215
Updated by Joseph Potvin 13 days ago
Oh, wait a second: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt
This is where I picked up CRLF.
So I guess were ought to just fix CRFL to be CRLF!
Updated by Joseph Potvin 11 days ago
- Priority changed from Urgent to Normal
Sorry for the confusion --
My most recent update cited: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3676.txt
So the IETF uses CRLF.
I see that you have it now only as LF (which I initially requested)... but I found that my request was wrong.
It should be CRLF (for: Carriage Return; Line Feed)