From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 25 22:28:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA06694 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA06689 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id AAA20331; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 00:28:09 -0500 Received: from p75.mixcom.com(198.137.186.25) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma020297; Sat Apr 26 05:27:56 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970426003035.00b3afb0@mixcom.com> X-Sender: sysop@mixcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 00:30:36 -0500 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. Cc: Curt Sampson , hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 09:31 PM 4/25/97 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >I'm not sure why NO is necessary if it causes no special expansion of >the flags. Again, I'm trying to avoid any and all "dual use" of >variables, only having "NO" be a special value in non-boolean >situations when there's really no other reasonable way of doing it, >e.g. I either have a filename parameter for something or I have "NO" >to denote that the option is turned off entirely. Those are kinda >evil, from a conceptual standpoint, but there are 3-4 instances where >a foo_enable and a foo was just too redundant, and there are no >DEFAULT cases for them in any event so the point is kinda moot. Hmmm... I may have misunderstood, but I can agree with you. Just that I have to account possibilities when I write scripts for techs that have root access (only a bit longer thankfully). Otherwise they know that I do bite. ------------------------------------------- Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator jeff@mixcom.net MIX Communications Serving the Internet since 1990