On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Ollie Cook wrote:
> I understand you objection to the first suggestion I made, but the
> second one gives you the same redundancy, without the waste. I may be
> missing what you're getting at though, so could you explain it a
> different way?
Well, ok. I have a very pragmatic opinion regarding software syntax
changes. I really don't think that Philip's possible implementation of the
feature you requested would provoke him to break anything. It would,
however provoke either failures or extra cost/effort on a certain
percentage of sites that have to deal with different syntax.
For example: we'd have to changes all our internal documentation and
backup configs. You state that you'd rather see a little tweak in software
to be done instead of buying hardware. On the other side you say that
you're of course going to do thoroughly implementing and testing the new
syntax. And I'll bet any amount that, all in all, the second sums up to
be more expensive.
Regards,
Volker
--
V. T. Mueller Freiburg, Germany vtmue (at) uni-freiburg.de
"problems are just opportunities in work cloth"
