Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:34:12 -0400 From: "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" <jeroen@vangelderen.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Small MAKEDEV bug Message-ID: <391716B4.BE21A10B@vangelderen.org> References: <19907.957812758@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <20000508115806.C51478@dragon.nuxi.com>, "David O'Brien" writes: > >On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > >> Or just settle for a more intuitive solution: > >> MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2 > >> MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01] > >> which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKEDEV 256 pty" > > > >I agree with this syntax and after sending my message to you, was sitting > >there thinking "MAKEDEV <num_of_devs> <dev_name>" would make a really > >nice clear syntax. If you can get BDE's buy-in and other BSD > >traditionalists I think this would be great. > > Make it > MAKEDEV -<num_of_devs> <dev_name> > and there will be no ambiguity. I'm confused, what ambiguity does it remove exactly? There are no device names that parse as a valid integer, are there? The problem I see with your solution is that it makes the count look optional while it isn't. If you really need to avoid ambuigity and accept the fact that a count can look optional, I'd use "-n <num_of_devs>" as the count in your suggestion looks like a negative number... Does that make sense? Cheers, Jeroen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?391716B4.BE21A10B>