[Swan-dev] expirimental : ipsec device/interface aka XFRMi
andrew.cagney at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 14:17:41 UTC 2020
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 15:08, Paul Wouters <paul at nohats.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
> >> I still believe yes/no is not appropriate here. As for using numbers or
> >> %unique, we already have that being used for the mark keyword(s) in the
> >> parser. So that functionality is already there.
> > I disagree. I think no|yes|<n> is cleaner for this kind of option.
> > Hence I choose the new convention.
> As no other people are weighing in, I'll stop objecting provided the
> parser crashers are resolved.
How does the manual page describe the behaviour?
Presumably the meaning of "no", "yes", and <n> do not overlap.
More information about the Swan-dev