>> 	crypto* at wherever
>> 	aes0 at crypto0
>> [...]
> I really wonder what is so wrong about being explicit.  Having the
> following is perfectly fine, and just seems like the thing to do to
> me:

>         crypto0 at whatever
>         crypto* at whatever

What if there are a dozen different "whatever"s scattered over the rest
of the config file?

I've seen config files that do stuff like

foo0 at bar?
foo* at bar?
...
foo0 at blee?
foo* at blee?
...
foo0 at wibble?
foo* at wibble?

presumably for exactly this reason, so that things which refer to foo0
can refer to any of the possible attachments for a foo.  (I've seen
this most often when foo is a framebuffer to which something (eg
wscons) can attach; in this case, something attaches to foo0 but not to
any other foo instance.)

If you do away with the arbitrary fiat that an explicit foo0 must be
declared in order to attach "at foo0", this clutter goes away, taking
the various errors it's just begging for with it.

> My point is just that if you want something to explicitly attach to
> crypto0, you should have an explicit crypto0 device.

And that's what I don't understand: *why* should you?  What does it buy
you, as opposed to the other way?

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B