Subject: Re: adding to machine_spec in config(8)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Matthew Fredette <fredette@MIT.EDU>
Date: 05/21/2001 10:41:51
> >> Why limit it to two additional names? Why not accept a (more or less)
> >> arbitrary number of them, from zero upwards?
> >Dunno. It might encourage overuse? I dig keeping available mechanism
> >to a minimum, until it becomes clear that it's needed.
> In general that's not the best attitude to have in designing API's
> (which this really is). The whole point here is to build a nice
> extensible system rather than a very rigid one which everyone starts
> hacking around as soon as it gets in their way.
> This is same sort of reasoning historically I've heard for random limits
> in system utils/programs and in general they never hold water and often
> times are a result of people simply not wanting to take the time to do it
> right (which I'm not necessarily saying is the case here).
> What exactly would be the harm in allowing an arbitrary set of names here?
> How/what defines "overuse"?
I guess I was thinking "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile".
Yeah, this is a bad attitude of mine that I need to shake.
OK, so right now machine_spec is:
machine MACHINE [MACHINE_ARCH]
Are there any objections to it becoming:
machine MACHINE [MACHINE_ARCH [MACHINE_OTHER ...]]