On 23 Oct 2010, at 12:36, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > Since we won't be able to change the ap_expr syntax in any significant > way after 2.4 has been released, we should try to do it right in 2.4.
+1. Thanks for opening this discussion. > Therefore I suggest to replace it with something that is closer to > ssl_expr. Initially, I thought it would be nice to have a SSI > compatibility mode, but now I think it would be cleaner to just stick > the SSI expression parser back into mod_include and not deal with it > further. On the other hand, maybe it is possible to make ap_expr > syntax compatible with ssl_expr and replace it. If not, at least the > evaluation logic should be shared between ap_expr and ssl_expr. Would you expect to break API compatibility here? The current API is designed to admit some per-module variations (with expr_eval being passed string_func and eval_func as arguments), but also to make that, by default, unnecessary. -- Nick Kew
