In message 199901242201.raa17...@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, Garrett Wollman write
s:
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au said:
Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named,
not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:55:50 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dillon
dil...@apollo.backplane.com said:
Strings are a whole lot more portable then integer assignments.
Nonsense. Strings are not portable at all -- they only exist in
FreeBSD. The reference implementation (4.4BSD) and its other
In message 199901251615.laa19...@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, Garrett Wollman write
s:
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:55:50 -0800 (PST), Matthew Dillon
dil...@apollo.backplane.com said:
Strings are a whole lot more portable then integer assignments.
Nonsense. Strings are not portable at all -- they
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au said:
Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named,
not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering
of nodes.
Nonsense. There are plenty of contexts in which a number makes far
yeah and we should get those nice valves that used to make radios so
useful as space-heaters.
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au said:
Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named,
not
Julian Elischer once stated:
= Nonsense. There are plenty of contexts in which a number makes far
= more sense than a name -- pretty much anything in any network stack
= other than Chaosnet, for example. If any of us ever make good on the
= threat of SNMP integration, having fixed numerical
This is a silly argument. Unless the operation in question
needs to be run a thousand times a second, a string is just
fine as a lookup mechanism. Duh. Besides, you can always
cache the translation.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon once stated:
=This is a silly argument. Unless the operation in question
=needs to be run a thousand times a second, a string is just
=fine as a lookup mechanism. Duh. Besides, you can always
=cache the translation.
I'll agree, that todays hardware turns this
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Pardon my intrusion, but I strongly dislike the very thought about
my computer looking-up the same string more then once or twice. If it
counts -- I'd take a number over a string anytime anywhere other
then in a documentation.
how often do you
Julian Elischer once stated:
= Pardon my intrusion, but I strongly dislike the very thought about
= my computer looking-up the same string more then once or twice. If it
= counts -- I'd take a number over a string anytime anywhere other
= then in a documentation.
=how often do you use this?
:Seldom. But the strings are still in the kernel, which becomes
:bigger with every build. My argument was more general, however,
:and directed against the growing tendency to use string literal
:(and copy them beck and forth). IMHO, the point of faster hardware
:is purely to have thing running
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 13:11:12 -0800, Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au said:
Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named,
not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering
of nodes.
Nonsense. There are plenty of contexts in which a number makes
Pardon my intrusion, but I strongly dislike the very thought about
my computer looking-up the same string more then once or twice. If it
counts -- I'd take a number over a string anytime anywhere other
then in a documentation.
Since sysctl isn't a performance interface, this isn't really an
: not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering
: of nodes.
:
: Nonsense. There are plenty of contexts in which a number makes far
: more sense than a name -- pretty much anything in any network stack
: other than Chaosnet, for example. If any of us ever make good on
Julian Elischer writes:
That is at least my opinion.. you may and do disagree. I guess you will
say that numbers are just as dynamic, etc.etc. well I just think that in
the REAL WORLD, as opposed to the theoretical world, names (which require
no co-ordination between authors), are a better
Mike Smith once stated:
=OTOH, you should consider going back to single-character directory
=names, since that's much more significant.
a) this will limit the number of directories to you-know-what
b) this will inconvinience a _user_ rather then a _programmer_,
for
16 matches
Mail list logo
