From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Aug 14 17:56:29 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA06158
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA06150
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA16929; Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
cc: danny@panda.hilink.com.au (Daniel O'Callaghan), hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: ipfw vs ipfilter? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 15 Aug 1996 09:50:12 +1000."
             <199608142350.QAA03500@freefall.freebsd.org> 
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:55:08 -0700
Message-ID: <16927.840070508@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> This reminds me of programming in BASIC, way back, when you needed to
> use line numbers for GOTO's, etc, and eventually, you will run into
> the same "problem" and need to renumber.  I really don't see a win

Ah, but then all good basics eventually had a RENUMBER command (even
if hacked out by some 3rd party) for handling this for you.  If you
want to implement it in a compatible fashion, I seem to remember that
it generally took base and increment arguments. :-) :-)

						Jordan