From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 4 14:15:31 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA13395 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 14:15:31 -0800 Received: from eel.dataplex.net (EEL.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.245]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA13379 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 14:15:25 -0800 Received: from [199.183.109.242] (cod [199.183.109.242]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA17499; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:14:46 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 16:14:47 -0600 To: Terry Lambert From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Hmmmm! `resvport' keyword not documented *anywhere*? Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman), hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert wrote: >> This begs the question of "why have undocumented word options at all?". Garrett A. Wollman responded: > For backward compatibility. Compatibility is a noble reason to have word options. However, IMHO, it does not justify undocumented options. On this subject, I adopt the government policy. "If it's in there, it has to be listed on the label" An undocumented "feature" is a coding error. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net