Jill Ramonsky scripsit: > Are the LS and PS characters actually used in real plain-text documents?
You can find such documents, but they're not common. LS was an attempt to unify the diverse standards for line-end characters by providing a new one, but IMHO it flopped. (XML 1.1, however, will interpret LS as a line-end character.) > These languages have the convention that "\n" in a string literal > means "new line". Strictly speaking, BY DEFINITION (from the C and C++ > specs), "\n" is supposed to mean LF, and nothing else, It means any one character that serves a new-linish function, which can be LF or CR or NEL, for example. On EBCDIC-based systems, the native C compiler interprets \n as 0x25, which is NEL. > compiled on Windows will reinterpret "\n" in a string literal to mean > either LF only (when in memory) or CRLF (when encoded to or from a file > or stream opened in text mode). It's any LF character that gets that treatment, of course, not just one from a string literal. The fact that DOSish systems map LF to CRLF on output and back on input has nothing to do with the C \n character. > I suspect (but I don't know for sure) that the Mac > will interpret "\n" as CR only. Yes. > It would seem impossible (or at least, a violation of the C/C++ specs) > to reinterpret "\n" as LS in C/C++ ... but then again, that > specification has already been violated, so maybe the precedent is there > and that no longer matters. It is not a violation. -- Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRAN John Cowan in any language. --Allen Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
