On 4/25/06, Hans Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 at 08:57 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 06:40:32 -0400, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > For the sake of the record, it's been duked out on IRC and Steve > > > wins :). (Specifically, ports will be required to have a unique string > > > ID, but it will live in the data file, not the code). > > > > Actually I didn't mean to say that they /will/ be required, just that I > > don't have a problem with it. I've not heard anyone else speak in favour > > of this, and it is a feature. If theres a critical mass of support I'm OK > > with adding it, as it should make the lives of some hosts much easier. > > Well then let me weigh in. I have in the past cursed the insensibility > of referencing a port with its arbitrary (from the human's POV) > numerical ID. I want human-friendly port IDs.
Me too.
