[thelist] Re: foo and message etiquette

[Kelly Hallman]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Joshua Olson wrote:
> > we are sensitive today aren't we? "foo" is a generally accepted name
> > for a variable in dummy code (not as in "you are a dummy", dummy as in
> > "here is some code to help you out") check out this definition:
> > http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci212139,00.html
> 
> How odd.  I always figured "foo" and "bar" were derivations of the
> militariesque acronym "FUBAR" which stands for "F'd Up Beyond All
> Recognition" I guess I learn something new every day.

Well, I think you are both right.  The article didn't really address what
the origin of foo and bar are, and I have also always thought FUBAR.

Some of the others listed in that article are much cooler than foo and bar
and though I'm not much of a foo and bar kind of guy, I may start using
some of the others listed there when writing example code.

I think dummy code was a bad phrasing too (especially with the implication
of foo == fool:) how about "illustrative code"

Also, I often don't add a salutation such as HTH, etc at the end of a
message, figuring it is implicated by my response.  I realize that this
has the possible side-effect of coming off a bit aloof, but that is a
calculated risk.  It's all in how you (choose to) read things!

-- 
Kelly Hallman
http://wrack.org/