> By contrast, for the previous implementation (as used for Unix-like
> systems, at least): The size of the pool of names is nearly equivalent
> to "unlimited", for practical purposes. Additionally, cycling through
> names in ordered fashion means that there is *zero* chance of generating
> the same name twice until you have gone through all the pool once.
Then we could address this concern by not limiting the length of the names
(that's a trait of the random-sequence). -- otoh I'm not wholly convinced
that problems due to collisions are not already problems that should be
fixed irregardless of the filenaming convention.
> Klaus
--
Thomas E. Dickey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clark.net/pub/dickey
