• Gold Dragon (3/3) Jun 22 2004 I was wondering if there were any other names for the other OSs. There
• Arcane Jill (4/7) Jun 22 2004 Just out of curiousity - why is it "linux", not "Linux"?
• Gold Dragon (5/17) Jun 22 2004 I don't know nor will I answer your question as the first half will
• Matthew (3/20) Jun 22 2004 It should be changed to Linux. We are pre-1.0.
• Matthew (2/24) Jun 22 2004
• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= (4/9) Jun 22 2004 Names (e.g. "Linux") have capital letters in all languages I know.
• Walter (3/9) Jun 22 2004 Because gcc predefines "linux" for linux-specific code.
• Gold Dragon (1/3) Jun 22 2004 Well what is the versioning for Mac below X? Or should I take a peek at ...
• Arcane Jill (15/17) Jun 22 2004 So what? Is there supposed to be a one-to-one correspondence between D
• Walter (14/32) Jun 22 2004 (a)
• Hauke Duden (17/72) Jun 22 2004 I understand your reasoning, but, respectfully, I think you have it
• Walter (24/37) Jun 22 2004 There's really only one C++ compiler on linux, and that's gcc. Other C++
• Oskar Linde (8/12) Jun 23 2004 It's more a question of consistency.

Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:

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?

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

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

Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:

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" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

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*?

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

 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*?

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sigbj=F8rn_Lund_Olsen?= <sigbjorn lundolsen.net> writes:

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.

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"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.

Gold Dragon <dragonwing dragonu.net> writes:

 
 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?

Arcane Jill <Arcane_member pathlink.com> writes:

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

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"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__".

Hauke Duden <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> writes:

Walter wrote:
 "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__".


I understand your reasoning, but, respectfully, I think you have it 
backwards.

You argue that it is easier to remember the way to spell something by 
citing a convention from another compiler and language and regarding a 
specific OS. This convention is different for other compilers and other 
OSs (for example, it would be WIN32 or _WIN32 for VC/Windows). So by 
following these "external" conventions you work against your own goal - 
it will be impossible to remember the way something is spelt unless you 
know the external influences.

Just establish a single convention for D and stick with it. That way you 
only have to remember one thing and it will reliably work for everything 
you do. Everyone can do that, whether he/she is new to writing portable 
code or not.

The alternative - having to remember a different spelling for every 
version statement - is much worse and error-prone.

Hauke

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Hauke Duden" <H.NS.Duden gmx.net> wrote in message
news:cbafsu$s5c$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 You argue that it is easier to remember the way to spell something by
 citing a convention from another compiler and language and regarding a
 specific OS. This convention is different for other compilers and other
 OSs (for example, it would be WIN32 or _WIN32 for VC/Windows). So by
 following these "external" conventions you work against your own goal -
 it will be impossible to remember the way something is spelt unless you
 know the external influences.

There's really only one C++ compiler on linux, and that's gcc. Other C++
compilers on linux strive to be bug compatible with it, so they'll be using
'linux' too. Other language compilers are not relevant because D looks to
C/C++ for conventions.

There is a compelling reason to not use _WIN32 - Microsoft is coming out
with a 64 bit version of Windows, yet they'll still be leaving _WIN32
defined, but optionally define _WIN64. No thanks.

 Just establish a single convention for D and stick with it. That way you
 only have to remember one thing and it will reliably work for everything
 you do. Everyone can do that, whether he/she is new to writing portable
 code or not.

 The alternative - having to remember a different spelling for every
 version statement - is much worse and error-prone.

It would be fine if there were such a thing as a standard spelling and caps
convention for an operating system. But there isn't. Especially when OS
vendors follow the wretched practice of putting punctuation marks in the
names of their products, like MS-DOS and OS/2. I see Mac OS X with several
different spellings - this is from apple's own web site:

Mac OS X
macosx
X
Mac OS X Panther
Panther
Mac OS

However, OS vendors tend to endorse a specific C/C++ compiler, and that
compiler in it will have a specific #define for the OS. So following that
convention makes sense. If the Linux people didn't like 'linux', why did
they put it in GCC?

Oskar Linde <d98-oliRE.MO.VE nada.kth.se> writes:

Walter wrote:
 However, OS vendors tend to endorse a specific C/C++ compiler, and that
 compiler in it will have a specific #define for the OS. So following that
 convention makes sense. If the Linux people didn't like 'linux', why did
 they put it in GCC?

It's more a question of consistency.

linux
__FreeBSD__
SOLARIS
__hpux
MACOSX

/Oskar