On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Dennis Nichols wrote:
> Greetings - First, my understanding of ROBOTINCLUDE and ROBOTEXCLUDE is
> that these are report-level commands, that is, they affect only the
> Operating System Report. Right?
>
Right. At the moment.
> A previous exchange on this list...
>
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Stephen Turner wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Aaron Shoblaske wrote:
> >> In the 4.90beta, is there any way in one line to exclude from the entire
> >> report all robots that you've defined using robotinclude (eg. ROBOT none)
> >> or do you still have to type in a bunch of seperate BROWEXCLUDEs for each
> >> robot (eg. BROWEXCLUDE inktomi*, etc.)? And if there isn't would it be
> >> hard to implement it in the beta?
>
> > There isn't. It's a good idea though. I'll do it. Probably.
>
> The above is a good step but something about it seems odd - one says which
> browsers to include in the Operating System Report as being robots, and
> then one says exclude all such items from the entire report.
>
Well, I guess the point is that Aaron's suggestion would break the idea of
ROBOT*CLUDE being a report-level command. So then it wouldn't really be
contradictory.
> How about this instead/in addition:
>
> For a selected set of commands, invent a syntax extension that says read
> the arguments for this command from a file. I could then, for example, put
> a list of robotish browsers in a file and use any of the following:
>
> ROBOTINCLUDE -FILE filename
> ROBOTEXCLUDE -FILE filename
> BROWEXCLUDE -FILE filename
> BROWINCLUDE -FILE filename
>
> This differs from CONFIGFILE because only the arguments would be in the
> file, not the commands. This could be generalized to many other commands
> but it is only really useful where you want to use the same list of
> arguments for different commands. I think only the item include/exclude
> commands would get used this way.
>
> Does this make sense?
>
Yes, it makes sense. I'm not sure whether I like it as an idea though. It's
concise, but it possibly seems like too much of a "power user" option, in
that makes it harder to look in one place and figure out what's going on.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
--
Stephen Turner http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WB, England
"Your account can only be used for a single internet session at any one
time and for no more than 24 hours in any one day." (NTL terms of use)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/analog-help@lists.isite.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
