Most of us use *nix to refer to Linux, BSD, Solaris, OSX, etc. But let's say you want to exclude OSX/iOS... what you would call that? It's kind of unwieldy to say "*nix excluding OSX".
Most of us use *nix to refer to Linux, BSD, Solaris, OSX, etc. But let's say you want to exclude OSX/iOS... what you would call that? It's kind of unwieldy to say "*nix excluding OSX".
"Free *nix" perhaps?
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
"*nix excluding OSX" does sound strange. But "we will be talking about *nix operating systems, except for OSX" sounds about right. It's just an exercise in phrase construction.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Maybe "librt OS"...
EDIT:
Does "distro OS" sound right? Linux and BSDs are traditionally called "distros", but I've never heard of an OSX version called a "distro".
Last edited by Yarin; 08-20-2013 at 01:11 PM.
How about "Not POSIX broken *nix" operating systems.
So says the manual page for clock_gettime
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
err...
Use a std::bitset
EDIT: Actually I'm suggesting that because somehow I think you want to define an OS through a series of bool values. If that's not the case:
bool is_nix_os
bool is_osx
is all that is required for you to match an operating system that is nix but not osx.
Last edited by Mario F.; 08-20-2013 at 01:48 PM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Well yeah, that's what I wanted to avoid.
"is_nix_os && !is_osx" will work, but what happens when another pseudo-nix OS, like OSX, comes along? I may be rewriting a lot of stuff.
Not a bad idea. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all to differentiate "posix" and "nix" OSes. I think I'll go with this.
Sounds like you have chanced upon a name that might work for you!Originally Posted by Yarin
Code:is_nix_os && !is_pseudo_nix
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
What will you do if OSX turns POSIX compliant? Or if Linux (which isn't fully compliant already) keeps widening the gap?
Just being annoying... But the point is, isn't it better if you just name your variables based on your actual problem domain? Say, bool compatible?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Well, yeah, except that I'd have something like "bool ThisApplication::CompatibleHost()". That way, you can check for any obvious or obscure features you require (particular OS, a particular library installed, program running from a privileged (or unprivileged) account, an RS232 port, a dongle plugged in, source compiled as C++98 but not as C++11, etc etc). With only a little more work, that function can complain bitterly and exit if the host doesn't have required capabilities, or save its findings so any complicated compatibility checks only need be done once. The function can include a range of checks at either compile time or run time.