From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jan 13 12:28:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAF314E42 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:28:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20485 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:28:05 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id VAA80254 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 21:28:04 +0100 (MET) Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp [192.51.44.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D025C15585; Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:26:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-MX9912-Fujitsu Gateway) id FAA20813; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:25:55 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp) Received: from incapgw.fujitsu.co.jp by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-9912-Fujitsu Domain Master) id FAA13166; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:25:54 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost ([192.168.245.12]) by incapgw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.9.3/3.7W-9912) id FAA20976; Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:25:53 +0900 (JST) To: asmodai@bart.nl Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Solicite review for KAME 10th patch] In-Reply-To: <20000113205438.C20217@lucifer.bart.nl> References: <20000114044825G.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> <20000113205438.C20217@lucifer.bart.nl> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.94 on Emacs 20.4 / Mule 4.0 (HANANOEN) X-Prom-Mew: Prom-Mew 1.93.4 (procmail reader for Mew) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20000114052621L.shin@nd.net.fujitsu.co.jp> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 05:26:21 +0900 From: Yoshinobu Inoue X-Dispatcher: imput version 990905(IM130) Lines: 19 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > bindresvport_sa() > > realhostname_sa() > > I really prefer the _sa versions because the naming is less ambiguous > from the 2 appended versions. I prefer self describing names too. If there is no strong opinion, I'll just apply *_sa(). > I wonder what the others think. Has this been standardised somewhere > already or are we now still in a phase, do what you want and after that > we'll make a IPv6 API standard? > > Thanks for doing this shin. Thanks for commenting it Asmodai. (:-) Yoshinobu Inoue To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message