On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
[snip]
>
> 7. [medium] The current naming for ptys doesn't scale that
> well. Changing it to ttyp%d / pty%d would probably be a
> good idea in the long run, but the ramifications are
> relatively widespread (think: "ports")
>
Which while being scaleable in one direction (you can have things like
/dev/pty1234567890) as it is essentialy open ended, on the other hand:
a) pty/tty names are now variable length
b) the name length advances quite quickly as we add more ptys
c) it is a totaly new "look and feel"
So why not instead:
a) have a constant that tells how long the tty name "suffix "is
supposed to be (#define TTY_NAMSUFL 4, for example)
b) encode the tty name as:
pty/ttykl..l
where k=[p-sP-S]
and l=[0123456789abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv]
and the number of l-s is the number given above in TTY_NAMSUFL
The current system would just be one where the number of "l-s" is
hardwired to 1.
Anybody who has been looking at tty names is used to base-32 anyways 8-)
>
> Poul-Henning
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
> FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
>
Sander
There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future -
all these are just illusions.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
