Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
More like
DIR SRV ALL ALL -DIR (SRV & HTACCESS) ALL -HTACCESS (SRV & DIR)
So, I'd suggest this naming
MP_CMD_DIR_... MP_CMD_SRV_... MP_CMD_ALL_...
with 2 new macros : MP_CMD_NO_DIR MP_CMD_NO_HTACCESS
To add to the top of a directive handler ?
Yes, but using those you can't tell from the declaration the scope of the directive. Is it really incovenient to have top-level declaration macros that tell it all?
It would be ideal, but what I am trying to say is that's it's error prone.
If you want a directive to be SRV + HTACCESS, you'd have to put
MP_CMD_SRV_AND_HTACCESS("<Perl>",[...]); (an alias for OR_ALL)
_AND_
MP_CMD_NO_DIR;
To the top of the directive implementation, so seeing MP_CMD_SRV_AND_HTACCESS in
modperl_cmd.h woundlnt' guarantee that the directive is doing that.
Do you see my point ?
Je vois, but that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. So that the declaration will already cover MP_CMD_NO_DIR. So for example we could add a new bitmask:
# SRV + HTACCESS - DIR
MP_CMD("<Perl>",[...], SRV | HTACCESS)# ALL MP_CMD(..., SRV | HTACCESS | DIR)
etc.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
