From: Hendrik Schober (SpamTrap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-22 03:33:15
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > > From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > >> "Hendrik Schober" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > >>
> > >> To prepare Unix tools such as GCC, the compiler and linker must be
> > >
> > > Rather than "Unix" consider "*nix" to be more inclusive. Those
> > > using a *nix OS will understand. Those not using one won't care.
> > I have no objection.
> > But I do want to know: what *nix OS is not a Unix OS?
> Linux is a prime example. "Unix" is a trade name that means
> something very specific. Not all Unix-like OSes are Unix.
It says "Unix tools such as GCC". Wouldn't this
apply to GCC on Linux as well?
> > >> <p> Note: the <b><code>#include</code> root</b> directory mentioned
> > >
> > > s/root/<i>root</i>
> > What is your rationale for suggesting that change?
> > The only possible reason I can imagine is that you're worried people
> > will think "root" is source code text. But there's already a good
> > hint: the change from code font. I'm pretty sure we don't want to get
> > into using bold-italic text without a very strong motivation.
> I'm pretty sure that you used italics to indicate user-specific
> information elsewhere. [...]
That would probably be me. ISTR Dave objecting to
me using italics.
BTW, I'm still with you here, although I'm pretty
silent right now. This week is a very busy one
again. I plan to find some time on the weekend to
incorporate the changes suggested. (This also gives
you a bit more time to discuss them <g> )
-- SpamTrap_at_[hidden] is never read I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org "Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving" Terry Pratchett
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk