Subject: RE: [xsl] FOO vs FO From: DPawson@xxxxxxxxxxx Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:57:25 +0100 |
What a mine of information this list is! I still prefer Jim's, although to see an RFC made me chuckle. > 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. ********** snip here ************* - NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your system. RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments. Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RNIB. RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227 Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] FOO vs FO, Hewko, Doug | Thread | Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO, David_Marston |
RE: [xsl] XPath Question, Michael Kay | Date | [xsl] RE:, Utah Ingersoll |
Month |