RE: [xsl] FOO vs FO

Subject: RE: [xsl] FOO vs FO
From: "Ben Robb" <b.robb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:17:33 +0100
Doug wrote:

Why was FOO and FO chosen instead of something less confusing? I can
understand FO for formatting objects, but why FOO? Why not XXX or ABC??

-----
>From http://www.webopedia.com:

"Foobar is a universal variable understood to represent whatever is
being discussed. It's usually used in examples that illustrate concepts
and ideas in computer science. 

For instance, a computer science professor may be discussing different
file formats. In this case, he would call the generic-example file foo
or foobar, then list the extensions associated with the file formats
(e.g. foobar.txt, foobar.gif, foobar.exe, foobar.tar). 

When foo or foobar is used, everyone understands that these are just
examples, and they don't really exist. 

Programmers and administrators also use foo and foobar in a similar
context. Files or programs named with foo or foobar are understood not
to be permanent and will be changed or deleted at anytime. 

Foo, bar, and the compound foobar were commonly used at MIT, Stanford
and the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland. Other generic
variables are used other places, but only these three are considered
universal. "

Ben

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread