On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Alex R?nne Petersen wrote: > On 07-11-2011 14:59, Alex R?nne Petersen wrote: > > 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 > > I propose: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/501 > > - Alex
If any change is to be made, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to change anything at all here, I'd go with all lower case for all of them.
