Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 01:46:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Adam David <adam@veda.is> To: proff@suburbia.net Cc: phk@critter.DK.tfs.COM, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw patches to test Message-ID: <199701170146.BAA20876@veda.is> In-Reply-To: <19970117012623.15897.qmail@suburbia.net> from "proff@suburbia.net" at "Jan 17, 97 12:26:23 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It would be a simple matter to revise these patches to use "from [not] " > > instead of "from [!]". Purists would complain that "from !192.168.23.0" is > > ugly syntax anyway, just as I strongly dislike "!from 192.168.23.0". > > Well, no, it wouldn't actually because you may have a host called "not", > this is why I suggest "not from", appart from the fact that "from not" is > not gramatical. > > Cheers, > Julian <proff@iq.org> > A good point about the hostname, which might be why I originally went with the '!' prefix. However, since "not" is now documented as a keyword, the obvious way to address such a host would be by its canonical name. I favour "from not" because we are describing mathematical logic using words borrowed from the english language for this purpose. If we were truly writing it in english, the overall syntax would be substantially more different than just saying "not from", and we might have more flexibility at defining complex rulesets in poetic modes of expression. -- Adam David <adam@veda.is>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701170146.BAA20876>