[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Consesus on Linuxconf?

Andreas Degert <ad@papyrus.hamburg.com> wrote:
> That is not the point; of course just the parsing, the syntactical
> portion, is rather easy. Else, how should a program like samba parse
> it's config files? Even if it's a complex embedded language, by
> definition its syntax can be parsed, and if it's for a program you
> even have the source for it. The problem lies in understanding the
> semantics from the users point of view, so that it can be presented
> to the user in a reasonable form. This is what the parser of a
> configuration program has to achieve.

Hmm.. what you're talking about here is a logical grouping mechanism
which can bleed over into adjacent areas. The logical grouping mechanism
is supportable (but you can't nest such groups). I'm not so sure that
it's a good idea to support the bleeding aspect, but that can also be
supported by explicitly representing the sequence of clumps of entries.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: