Thread overview | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
June 22, 2004 versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS? |
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gold Dragon | In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says... > >I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS? Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. Arcane Jill |
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Arcane Jill | Arcane Jill wrote:
> In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says...
>
>>I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS?
>
>
> Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"?
>
> Not bothered by the answer, just wondering.
> Arcane Jill
>
I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will explain why. I could only guess that maybe they were smoking a bong or forgot to caps the first letter. I would like to have 'Linux' but what can I do? Change the source code, *laughs*?
|
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Gold Dragon | It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0. "Gold Dragon" <dragonwing@dragonu.net> wrote in message news:cb9681$1p4l$2@digitaldaemon.com... > Arcane Jill wrote: > > > In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says... > > > >>I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS? > > > > > > Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? > > > > Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. > > Arcane Jill > > > > I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will explain why. I could only guess that maybe they were smoking a bong or forgot to caps the first letter. I would like to have 'Linux' but what can I do? Change the source code, *laughs*? |
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | > It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0. If "Linux" is indeed what it would sensibly be defined as, that is. If there's a good reason why "linux" and "Windows", then so be it. > > "Gold Dragon" <dragonwing@dragonu.net> wrote in message news:cb9681$1p4l$2@digitaldaemon.com... > > Arcane Jill wrote: > > > > > In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says... > > > > > >>I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS? > > > > > > > > > Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? > > > > > > Not bothered by the answer, just wondering. > > > Arcane Jill > > > > > > > I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will explain why. I could only guess that maybe they were smoking a bong or forgot to caps the first letter. I would like to have 'Linux' but what can I do? Change the source code, *laughs*? > > |
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew | Matthew wrote:
>>It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0.
>
>
> If "Linux" is indeed what it would sensibly be defined as, that is. If there's a
> good reason why "linux" and "Windows", then so be it.
Names (e.g. "Linux") have capital letters in all languages I know. Granted, I know only latin-based ones, but there you go. It's "Linux". 100% sure of it.
|
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Arcane Jill | "Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cb95v4$1oqu$1@digitaldaemon.com... > In article <cb95dc$1nmm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Gold Dragon says... > > > >I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There is a few for Windows and I see one for linux. Is there one for Unix (or will linux work for it) and is there one for MacOS? > > Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code. |
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | >
> Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.
>
Well what is the versioning for Mac below X? Or should I take a peek at gcc?
|
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | In article <cb9see$2u9r$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... > >> Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? > >Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code. So what? Is there supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between D version(...) tags and gcc preprocessor defines then? Because, if there is, (a) it's not mentioned anywhere, and (b) I don't think there should be. D is more than just an evolving compiler - it is a *LANGUAGE*. gcc is just a program - albeit a compiler, and a damn good one, it is, nonetheless, merely one single implementation among many of the C++ (not D) standard. I see no reason why this historical accident should force either bad grammar or inconsistent style on D. Well - I'm not particularly bothered about this, so I'm not going to argue about it beyond this post, but ... why not just be consistent with all the other D version names? (And presumably the version name for MacOS should be MacOS ... unless gcc gets to define that too). Arcane Jill |
June 22, 2004 Re: versioning other OS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Arcane Jill | "Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:cba8os$h17$1@digitaldaemon.com... > In article <cb9see$2u9r$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says... > > > >> Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"? > > > >Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code. > > So what? Is there supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between D version(...) tags and gcc preprocessor defines then? Because, if there is, (a) > it's not mentioned anywhere, and (b) I don't think there should be. > > D is more than just an evolving compiler - it is a *LANGUAGE*. gcc is just a > program - albeit a compiler, and a damn good one, it is, nonetheless, merely one > single implementation among many of the C++ (not D) standard. I see no reason > why this historical accident should force either bad grammar or inconsistent > style on D. > > Well - I'm not particularly bothered about this, so I'm not going to argue about > it beyond this post, but ... why not just be consistent with all the other D > version names? > > (And presumably the version name for MacOS should be MacOS ... unless gcc gets > to define that too). I see your point, but there's also a point to abiding by common conventions absent a compelling reason for something different. If you've written a lot of portable code, you're probably used to using 'linux' rather than 'Linux' or 'LINUX' or "__linux__". |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation