Stephen J. Roznowski wrote:
> 
> I'll answer the easy question first... The "11th" port would be 'a'
> just like ttyp?.

tty00...tty09, then tty0a? I don't think so. Why bother with the leading
0 then?

> As I stated, I don't see how to parameterized this correctly. Who says
> where the tty?? devices start (I know how to parameterized the unit
> information, but didn't see the point if I couldn't do the other part
> correctly). How can I tell that mfcs port 1 should be tty01 or tty07
> or tty0c or ...? [Same thing for the parallel ports...]

So you're saying that since you can't do it 100% right, you're not even
going to try to get it partially right? Why bother even doing it at all
then?

> If you believe that the ttym? should become cua??, SUBMIT A SEND-PR!
> I'm sorry to be sounding "hostile" about this. If you don't like something
> that I'm proposing, submit an alternative (preferable using send-pr) and
> let the Amiga port maintainer do the choosing.

Fine.  I was trying to make useful suggestions to you so that you could
enhance your proposal.  Appologies for assuming we could work together
and make a reasonable cooperative effort instead having a adversarial
battle o' the PR's. Sheez. It's only MAKEDEV for crying out loud... I
didn't think it was worth a flamewar.

-- 
Ty Sarna                 "Don't be wet or humidity, for the cause of
tsarna@endicor.com        electric obstacle." -- Warning from a manual