On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 10:20:23AM +0800, Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote: > > OK maybe "use" is OK in fact, considering the alternatives. > > > > :) some proposals for the keywords: > > for/use > condition/use > cond/use > > (cond/use seems the best compromise - short, but understandable enough)
what would you think about "do/use" ? > > If we extend the system, we'll have to associate parameters > > with a condition. > > > > But since the entry point is the switching rule here, maybe we'll end up > > with something very close to what you have implemented in your patch, in > > the end, and it's just that we want to make it more generic to use the > > two conditions layers in any ruleset. > > > > I would guess so! Even the redirect rules and 'block' rules look > pretty similar... :) yes, and maybe this is what we should try to improve : converge towards a generic condition matching/execution system, to which we pass the action and the args. That way, we just have to run it over redirect_rules or switching_rules always using the same code. Willy
