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

Reply via email to