On 07-11-2011 01:17, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/6/2011 6:40 AM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-11-06 04:04:22 +0000, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> said:
>
>> On 11/5/2011 2:07 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> dmd's version identifiers are annoyingly variable (e.g. linux is
camelcased,
>>> whereas Windows is Pascal-cased and OSX is all uppercase).
>>
>> What they do is follow the casing and spelling of the pre-defined
macros of
>> the local C compiler.
>
> I find this statement puzzling. According to
> <http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html>:
>
> * There's no OSX macro on OS X, just __APPLE__ and __MACH__.
> * There's no Solaris macro on Solaris, only 'sun' and '__sun'.
> * There's no Windows/Win32/Win64 macro on Windows, there's
> __WINDOWS__/_WIN32/_WIN64.
> * There's no FreeBSD macro on FreeBSD, instead you have __FreeBSD__.
>
> Beside linux, I don't see any of the predefined version identifiers
> corresponding to the platform's standard C macros.
Based on my research:
_WIN32 Microsoft NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Win32s, Windows 2000
_WIN64 Windows for AMD64
linux Linux
__APPLE__ Mac OSX
__FreeBSD__ FreeBSD
__OpenBSD__ OpenBSD
__sun&&__SVR4 Solaris, OpenSolaris (yes, both macros are necessary)
Hence FreeBSD rather than freebsd or Freebsd. The underscores just
looked awful :-) and are unnecessary for D since the version tags are in
a separate namespace.
Had to come up with one for Solaris.
APPLE is hopelessly generic, considering Apple has produced many
operating systems.
__WINDOWS__ is not what DMC uses. See
http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/predefined.html
Some people have protested that I have "trivialized" Linux by using
"linux", but I am perplexed why that's ok for gcc but not for D.
My only actual complaint here would be the casing of the 'l'. The
version identifier itself seems fine to me.
And finally, there is no such thing as a "sane" version identifier
scheme. For one thing, OS vendors do not pick sane names. OS/2 is not an
identifier. Neither is OS X. Nor is GNU/Linux. Nor do the OS vendors
pick any sane identifiers for their own systems (look at what Sun did).
Even if someone comes up with a naming scheme for D that most agree is
sane, intuitive, and attractive, switching to it would again silently
break a large swath of existing D code. D cannot advance by constantly
breaking things.
- Alex
