🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3382@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Flame on...
>
>AAAAARGH! Don't do it! Don't do it! Please please please don't implement
>this system. It provides no extra capabilities and adds YET ANOTHER LEVEL
>OF NAMING. There's too much name/level confusion as it is... just make
>new programs specify a device name and number...
>
>Flame off...

I don't see what is the big deal. It looks just fine to me.  If you
don't want to use the name "serial.device" for your board you don't
have to.  Use the DEVICE keyword to define your own.  That's how
it is done with the ASDG card.  If CBM wants to continue to use
"serial.device" in their serial devices, I also don't have any problem 
with that.  I like the idea of a "default" serial device, selectable
from Preferences.  And the use of SER:, SER1:, SER2:, etc... (and
SIOSBX: or whatever ASDG will call their DOS device) seems perfectly
reasonable to me.

So my vote is a total YES on the new Multiple Serial Spec.  I still
wish that a standard way to write the serial port bits (in my proposed
way, Perry's or any equivalnet one) be approved as soon as possible.

-- Marco Papa 'Doc'
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
uucp:...!pollux!papa       BIX:papa       ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu
 "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=