| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Roy Marples wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> 0_config_eth0="1.2.3.4 netmask 5.6.7.8;" |
| 6 |
>>> 1_config_eth0="\*" |
| 7 |
>>> 2_config_eth0="'host.name' netmask 1.2.3.4" |
| 8 |
>>> 3_config_eth0="-I 'option; $FOO with spaces'" |
| 9 |
>> I was hoping for some sort of meaningfully named separate variables, not |
| 10 |
>> an even messier fake array. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I'm all ears for any other suggestions :) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If there is some problem with this suggestion feel free to shoot it full |
| 16 |
of holes, but how about something like: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
address_eth0="1.2.3.4" |
| 19 |
netmask_eth0="255.255.255.0" |
| 20 |
broadcast_eth0="1.2.3.255" |
| 21 |
gateway_eth0="1.2.3.1" |
| 22 |
network_eth0="1.2.3.0" |
| 23 |
hostname_eth0="mypc" |
| 24 |
options_eth0="bells and whistles" |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Without digging through the original source I'm not sure what everything |
| 27 |
else in that array is, but I think you get the picture. Instead of |
| 28 |
sticking all these parameters into a big array why not break them down |
| 29 |
into what they actually are used for? This should also make the code |
| 30 |
that actually reads back these variables a lot more readable - instead |
| 31 |
of wondering what the 5th field in the array is you would see something |
| 32 |
meaningful like "netmask". |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Again, if I'm missing some reason why this wouldn't work feel free to |
| 35 |
point it out. :) |
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
iD8DBQFHIb6OG4/rWKZmVWkRAhvzAJ0eoNK8I73+HU3tVRnJzFMJwYKSqQCgqzoW |
| 41 |
j71E+DxgfrGTRSwKWgCmW40= |
| 42 |
=qitq |
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives