Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO

Subject: Re: [xsl] 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