>> + fprintf(stderr, "t:'%s'\n", t);
>
> I guess you forgot to remove this, correct?
yes, didn't scrutinize properly when I picked the patch back up
>
>> + const char *ww = ap_getword_conf(cmd->pool, &tt);
>
> Doesn't this mean that we lose the second argument if disabled is the first?
> The second argument is stored in ww in this case and the the checking of the
> while
> condition will let us advance to the third argument, correct?
only the short-lived "tt" is getting advanced, so the second arg is
still available in the while loop based on "t"
>
>> + if (ww == NULL || !ww[0]) {
>> + /* "disabled" is first, and alone */
>> +
>> + continue;
>
> Why continue and not break? We already now that there is only one argument.
> Where is the point in testing the while condition again?
>
true; thanks
--
Eric Covener
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
