On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 04:05:39PM +0100, Luis Oliveira wrote: >On 07/08/07, Nikodemus Siivola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The only things I'm unhappy about are grabbing package names like >> MACH. [...] >> (a) Use names like OSIX, OSMACH, OSWIN -- compromise between putting >> them in the OSICAT "namespace" and using something terse. > >Those names do sound like a good compromise. (And I think Corman >already uses WIN.) What do you think Stelian? Also, OSIMACH and >OSIWIN? Or is that one character too many?
I think OSWIN and OSIX(OSNIX ?) are ok(maybe nicknamed OW and OX :) )
about Mach, I don't think it should have a package on its own,
especially since the only Mach system used around is Darwin/OSX which is
almost identical to a FreeBSD. perhaps one day a brave coder will want
to port everything on GNU/Hurd and we'll have OSHURD :D
>> Other stuff (aka directions to move in): while I'm OK with having
>> OSICAT-POSIX /
>> OSIX on Windows, in the long term the Windows side should probably not build
>> on
>> it.
>
>Sure.
I agree too
--
(sign :name "Stelian Ionescu" :aka "fe[nl]ix"
:quote "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.")
pgp7N0rFz9fLu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ iolib-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iolib-devel
