Version Identifiers for Platforms / Architectures not supported by DMD

[Brad Roberts]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Alex R?nne Petersen wrote:
> On 07-11-2011 14:59, Alex R?nne Petersen wrote:
> > On 07-11-2011 14:20, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > > "Walter Bright"<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> > > news:j9784p$24tu$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > > > 
> > > > Based on my research:
> > > > 
> > > > _WIN32 Microsoft NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Win32s,
> > > > Windows 2000
> > > > _WIN64 Windows for AMD64
> > > > linux Linux
> > > > __APPLE__ Mac OSX
> > > > __FreeBSD__ FreeBSD
> > > > __OpenBSD__ OpenBSD
> > > > __sun&&__SVR4 Solaris, OpenSolaris (yes, both macros are
> > > > necessary)
> > > > 
> > > > Hence FreeBSD rather than freebsd or Freebsd. The underscores just
> > > > looked
> > > > awful :-) and are unnecessary for D since the version tags are in a
> > > > separate namespace.
> > > > 
> > > > Had to come up with one for Solaris.
> > > > 
> > > > APPLE is hopelessly generic, considering Apple has produced many
> > > > operating
> > > > systems.
> > > > 
> > > > __WINDOWS__ is not what DMC uses. See
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.digitalmars.com/ctg/predefined.html
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > You're completely contradicting your claim here of having used the gcc
> > > idents. Obviously you changed the idents, and you had a reason for
> > > each one.
> > > There's pretty damn good reason for changing "linux" too.
> > > 
> > > At least Phobos is finally ditching the absolutely rediculous
> > > philosophy of
> > > "always use naming conventions from random other places, and don't
> > > ever even
> > > think about being internally-consistent".
> > > 
> > > > Some people have protested that I have "trivialized" Linux by using
> > > > "linux", but I am perplexed why that's ok for gcc but not for D.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Strawman.
> > > 
> > > > And finally, there is no such thing as a "sane" version identifier
> > > > scheme.
> > > > For one thing, OS vendors do not pick sane names. OS/2 is not an
> > > > identifier. Neither is OS X. Nor is GNU/Linux. Nor do the OS vendors
> > > > pick
> > > > any sane identifiers for their own systems (look at what Sun did).
> > > 
> > > You're really stretching to say those aren't "sane" names. They're just
> > > names, they're not even intended to be identifiers. To make identifiers
> > > *for* them, removing the illegal chars (and using a non-schizophrenic
> > > casing
> > > scheme) is an obvious and non-problematic solution. Picking *ONE* of
> > > them to
> > > be lowercased instead of upper camel cased like the rest (or any other
> > > inconsistent casing) isn't merely "not sane", it's also completely
> > > unnecessary.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Even if someone comes up with a naming scheme for D that most agree is
> > > > sane, intuitive, and attractive, switching to it would again silently
> > > > break a large swath of existing D code. D cannot advance by constantly
> > > > breaking things.
> > > 
> > > Adding "Linux" as a preferred alternative to "linux" will not break large
> > > swaths of code.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, this would be a good idea. This approach could deprecate 'linux' in
> > favor of 'Linux' as 'darwin' was deprecated in favor of 'OSX'.
> > 
> > - Alex
> 
> I propose: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/501
> 
> - Alex

If any change is to be made, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to change 
anything at all here, I'd go with all lower case for all of them.