I'm making some changes to the build process for Mango, and noticed some posts here about version(linux). I've currently changed all of Mango to use version(Posix) instead, and figured we'd weed out any linux/bsd/darwin specifics along the way ...

Does this sound reasonable? Any other ideas?

Thx.

Kris wrote:
> I'm making some changes to the build process for Mango, and noticed some
> posts here about version(linux). I've currently changed all of Mango to use
> version(Posix) instead, and figured we'd weed out any linux/bsd/darwin
> specifics along the way ...

I think it makes more sense to target APIs than operating systems. Windows, for example, has a full POSIX subsystem as part of WSFU.  In such an installation, I can see the Windows and POSIX flags being set, but not Win32 or Win64.  Would there be any reason to have more than one POSIX flag for different versions, or is one enough?  By the way, it may make more sense to have the POSIX flag in all caps--isn't it an acronym?


Sean

Kris wrote:

> I'm making some changes to the build process for Mango, and noticed some
> posts here about version(linux). I've currently changed all of Mango to use
> version(Posix) instead, and figured we'd weed out any linux/bsd/darwin
> specifics along the way ...
> 
> Does this sound reasonable? Any other ideas?

version(Unix) is used in other places, with the downside
that both Windows and Unix have trademark claims on them.

--anders

PS. I totally gave up on the version name casing earlier.

In article <co0t3g$2soe$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean Kelly says...
>
>Kris wrote:
>> I'm making some changes to the build process for Mango, and noticed some posts here about version(linux). I've currently changed all of Mango to use version(Posix) instead, and figured we'd weed out any linux/bsd/darwin specifics along the way ...
>
>I think it makes more sense to target APIs than operating systems. Windows, for example, has a full POSIX subsystem as part of WSFU.  In such an installation, I can see the Windows and POSIX flags being set, but not Win32 or Win64.  Would there be any reason to have more than one POSIX flag for different versions, or is one enough?  By the way, it may make more sense to have the POSIX flag in all caps--isn't it an acronym?
>
>
>Sean

POSIX = Portable Operating System Interface

Windows XP no longer includes POSIX as part of the OS. :-(

In article <co1ecs$iv1$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>
>POSIX = Portable Operating System Interface
>
>Windows XP no longer includes POSIX as part of the OS. :-(

I know :-/.  But I was referring to Windows Services for Unix, which includes an entire POSIX subsystem that sits parallel to the Win32 subsystem (so it isn't a translation layer like Cygwin is).  Very nice, though I've only played with it a bit.  I think I'm going to re-install it today and see if GDC runs on it.


Sean