In message <199901251615.laa19...@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman write
s:
>< 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
>de
< 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
descendants use numbers.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family /
In message <199901242201.raa17...@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>, Garrett Wollman write
s:
>< 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
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 who
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
:> > 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 g
>
> 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 reall
> < 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
> more sense than a name -- pretty much anything i
: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 fast
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?
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
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 in
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
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 id
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:
> < said:
>
> > Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named,
> > not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numberi
< 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
more sense than a name -- pretty much anything in any network st
16 matches
Mail list logo
