Thank you everyone for your thoughts on this.
I dont think we want to introduce a $COMPILER$ section within the
documentation files.
I can rename the $PLATFORM$ section to $ARCHITECTURE$, unless there is a
more suitable choice.
For now I'll stick with $PLATFORM$; I'm programming a list of accepted
values, though I'm also leaning toward have the list of these
dynamically built from the config folder.
April
(April) I've gleaned this list of OS from the source:
BSD
DARWIN
DOS
HPUX
LINUX
OS2
SUNOS
UNIX
WIN
WIN_64
WIN_CE
The document files have sections called 'PLATFORMS' however I've seen
the term 'platform' used in reference to a compiler.
My questions to the group are:
- is the list of currently recognized OS
...
- is the term 'PLATFORM' synonymous with 'OS'
- is the term 'PLATFORM' in reference to/relation to a compiler the
wrong term?
(Viktor Szakáts wrote:) That's a though one, we use wrong terms many
times in Harbour
and even that not very consistently. We use OS, PLATFORM and
ARCHITECTURE to refer to operating system. IMO OS is OS,
ARCHITECTURE should better be named CPU (or something analogous).
PLATFORM is about okay, although it's not precise.
...
(Viktor Szakáts wrote:) [ BTW I plan to continue cleanup of these term
internally, so
it's possible that ARCH will be changed to something else, if
less users will depend on this settings. ]
--
Never buy a car you can't push.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
