Re: [boost] Customer Friendlier Boost Installation-- (Finally) Getting Started

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-07 14:42:03

Andrey Melnikov <melnikov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Hendrik Schober" <SpamTrap_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> 
>> 
>>>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?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, but technically it wouldn't apply to Intel on Linux.  It won't
>> make much difference to understandability if you reject Rob's change,
>> but he's right that his suggestion would be an improvement.
>> 
> Well, GCC isn't a Unix tool. At least G in GCC acronym stands for "GNU 
> is not a Unix" :)

Your point is lost on me; but I'm done arguing over this change.
Rob's idea is an improvement, IMO.
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com