On 07-11-2011 14:20, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright"<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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
You're completely contradicting your claim here of having used the gcc
idents. Obviously you changed the idents, and you had a reason for each one.
There's pretty damn good reason for changing "linux" too.
At least Phobos is finally ditching the absolutely rediculous philosophy of
"always use naming conventions from random other places, and don't ever even
think about being internally-consistent".
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.
Strawman.
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).
You're really stretching to say those aren't "sane" names. They're just
names, they're not even intended to be identifiers. To make identifiers
*for* them, removing the illegal chars (and using a non-schizophrenic casing
scheme) is an obvious and non-problematic solution. Picking *ONE* of them to
be lowercased instead of upper camel cased like the rest (or any other
inconsistent casing) isn't merely "not sane", it's also completely
unnecessary.
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.
Adding "Linux" as a preferred alternative to "linux" will not break large
swaths of code.
Yes, this would be a good idea. This approach could deprecate 'linux' in
favor of 'Linux' as 'darwin' was deprecated in favor of 'OSX'.
- Alex
