Re: Consesus on Linuxconf?
Andreas Degert <ad@papyrus.hamburg.com> wrote:
> please don't answer too quickly; if you think about it a second
> (in the context of the thread) you will realize that I wrote about
> syntactically and semantically correct config files that are too
> complex for the parser.
That shouldn't matter for context free grammars. If the grammar
isn't context free you're dealing with something like unrestricted
perl, not a config file.
> For, samba, a config file overwriting some global setting indirectly
> with the line
>
> include = /etc/smb.conf.%m
>
> occurring later in the config file (%m expands into the client machine
> name) is already tough for the parser (and the ui displaying the
> data).
You mean a non-global override of a global default?
For a UI you need an area for defaults, and you need to be able to
enter specifics (specific file system areas, specific printers). Under
a specific file system entry you need to be able to represent the
defaults and you need to be able to represent overriding them.
Frankly, this looks like a simple case.
> PS: If you really succeed in writing such a parser correctly, it
> should be easy to additionally make it ask me in such a case if I want
> to start a new samba configuration from scratch and where I want it to
> save my misplaced email :-))
I'm not working on any parsers at the moment, but I've written parsers
in the past. Samba's conf file is much less complicated than, say,
c. Samba's conf file is so simply I believe you can represent all
syntactically valid conf files with a regular expression.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: