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?

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

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*?

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*?

> 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*?
>
>

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.

"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.

> 
> 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?

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

"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__".