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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] FOO vs FO, Chris Bayes | Thread | Re: [xsl] FOO vs FO, Thomas B. Passin |
RE: [xsl] FOO vs FO, Ben Robb | Date | RE: [xsl] What is wrong with this k, Michael Kay |
Month |