G'Day Roy,
 
-=> Quoting Roy Mcneill to All <=-
 RM> I've often wondered why foo() (the fraternal twin of bar()) is
 RM> spelled "foo". If it was to respect its ancestor properly,
 RM> shouldn't it be spelled "fu"?

This was on the C_Echo just recently,i'm not sure if i'm buying that
it came from FUBAR.Most of the guys there, are yanks so hmmmm...
Not to mention that the term FUBAR has no (to me) visible relation to the 
context foo() and bar() is used in.       
Perhaps foo() sounds better if it is passed the variable Q ? :-)
 
  L8r Frank (fadam{at}ozemail.com.au).
  
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.21

--- Maximus 3.01