From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 8257 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2020 00:06:13 -0000
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 20 Jul 2020 00:06:13 -0000
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id 5D50D9BA9D; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:06:07 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27E3B9BA4D;
	Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:05:08 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
 id C93A29BA32; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:05:04 +1000 (AEST)
X-Greylist: delayed 1973 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org;
 Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:05:03 AEST
Received: from loire.is.ed.ac.uk (loire.is.ed.ac.uk [129.215.16.10])
 by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7128C9BA2A
 for <tuhs@tuhs.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:05:03 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.202.41])
 by loire.is.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 06JNW7oC015338
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT)
 for <tuhs@tuhs.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:32:07 +0100
Received: from macaroni.inf.ed.ac.uk (macaroni.inf.ed.ac.uk [129.215.197.42])
 by crunchie.inf.ed.ac.uk (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 06JNW79F001642
 for <tuhs@tuhs.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:32:07 +0100
Received: by macaroni.inf.ed.ac.uk (Postfix, from userid 26013)
 id BB69D2D9E6DD; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:32:07 +0100 (BST)
From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
To: tuhs@tuhs.org
X-Mailer: Ream 5.1.51-richard-mac
Message-Id: <20200719233207.BB69D2D9E6DD@macaroni.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 00:32:07 +0100 (BST)
X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at loire.is.ed.ac.uk
 with MIMEDefang 2.84, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 129.215.16.10
Subject: [TUHS] CR delay for VT05
X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
Sender: "TUHS" <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org>

Looking at the 6th edition man page tty(2), I see

     Carriage-return delay type 1 lasts about .08 seconds and is
     suitable for the Terminet 300.  Delay type 2 lasts about .16
     seconds and is suitable for the VT05 and the TI 700.  Delay
     type 3 is unimplemented and is 0.

     New-line delay type 1 is dependent on the current column and
     is tuned for Teletype model 37's.  Type 2 is useful for the
     VT05 and is about .10 seconds.  Type 3 is unimplemented and
     is 0.

Why would the VT05 (a VDU) need a delay for carriage return?
I can just about imagine that it might need one for linefeed
if it shifted the characters in memory.

-- Richard

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.