On Sep 20, 6:19, Ward Donald Griffiths III wrote:
Pete Turnbull wrote:
> > The first line on page 1 of my CP/M 2.2 manual says "CP/M? is a
> > monitor/control program ..."
>
> It is indeed a monitor/control program. That does not mean that that
> is what the initials stand for. In the same way I can say that WG is
> a weird geek. (Actually, it's other people who usually say that -- I
> just don't actively [or actually] disagree with them).
Sure, but the point I was making was simply that it's referred to
differently in different places. For example, other CP/M documentation
refers to it as "a control program for microprocessors" -- but the 2.2 docs
don't (AFAICS). I think trying to decide on a canonical definition of what
CP/M stands for is futile -- since DR were themeselves inconsistent over
time. Much the same thing happens in lots of other places, and it's not
unusual for someone to pick a name simply because it has multiple meanings
or interpretations.
I think it's significant that early DR docs don't explicitly say what the
acronym stands for (or even that it's an acronym).
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Received on Sun Sep 20 1998 - 05:37:29 BST