Subject: Re: FOO vs FO
From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:17:46 +0100
|
> Why was FOO
It's a law. "random strings" in examples have to be "foo" and "bar".
This law was laid down by Kernighan and Richie at the same time they
were defining the language C. Whilst C is an imperative programming
language (thus an ugly blot on the landscape to the pure and virtuous
members of the declarative programming community as found on this list)
some aspects of C have spread to all languages, and using foo,bar in
examples is one.
David
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
- FOO vs FO
- Hewko, Doug - Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:05:50 -0400 (EDT)
- cutlass - Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
- David Carlisle - Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:26:31 -0400 (EDT) <=
- Chris Bayes - Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
- Michael Kay - Thu, 6 Sep 2001 08:40:40 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Cart
