On 4/25/06, Hans Fugal <hans@email-addr-hidden> 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.
Received on Tue Apr 25 04:15:09 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 25 2006 - 04:15:09 EEST