On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:14:01PM +0100, Patrick Nagelschmidt wrote: > is the naming of classes essential for building them correctly? is > parent 1:1 classid 10:0 somehow different from parent 1:1 classid 1:2? > up to now i thought classid was only a name and the parent would be > enough to make the classes' positions in the tree unambiguously... If we were to rework the naming, something like ... 1) parent 1: classid 1:2 2) parent 1:2 classid 1:2:5 3) parent 1:2:5 classid 1:2:5:8 ... would make more sense. The numbering scheme currently in place makes very little sense and is quite wasteful of the number-space it uses (not that it matters much to most people). If the above were used, 'parent' would become quite unnecessary of course. -- Michael T. Babcock CTO, FibreSpeed Ltd. (Hosting, Security, Consultation, Database, etc) http://www.fibrespeed.net/~mbabcock/
