e...@thyrsus.com said: > But doing the right thing is better than a switch. And the test is a cost > that only needs to be paid once.
I think your no-switch approach is good for things where the choice is A or B, like picking the right baud rate. But this isn't one of those cases. This is an X doesn't work. Did the user intend that or is something broken? In the obscure case where IPv6 is not enabled on the system, I'm happy to add a "-4" to ntp.conf to tell the system I expect that. I've got the code working, but it also ignores lots of other cases where I want it to crash. I should be able to fix that, just more code and I need to get the internal interface right. I also disagree with your only need to test once. If we only need to test once, why are we maintaining a complicated test package? I agree that this sort of code is not likely to break due to system upgrades so the need for continual testing is not high. On the other hand, it would be nice to test it on all OSes. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
