On 2002.01.15, at 02:05, Chris Devers wrote: >>> Yes, I agree it is confusing. I am not crazy about MacOSX, >>> but can think of nothing better, so I am not objecting. >> >> I have a feeling that "MacOSX" is not future-proofed. > > That's true, but it might work in the same way that "Win32" does. There, > of course, is no Windows 32 product, but rather a family of them that > can > be described as Win32. Mac OS X is clearly a big break with what > preceded > it, and presumably Mac OS XI (or whatever it will be) will evolve from > what we have now, rather than be another fundamental break. For lack > of a > better generic name for this new family of Mac systems, MacOSX might > have > to do -- though I'd be interested in better suggestions. Aqua? Darwin?
FYI Here is the reason why I picked MacOSX:: RELUCTANTLY. Mac:: should work on both world but mine does not. Aqua:: is the Name of UI so it should belong to modules that does things like Tk:: or Qt::. The biggest contender was Darwin:: but BSD world of MacOS X is the prime example that's wrong. If Darwin:: were appropriate, native /bin/ commands would have treated resource fork like MacOS. Oh well.... Dan the Man with Too Many Acronyms to Grok
