William Bulley wrote: > You said yourself to not look at the source code.
My intent was to say that looking at the source code was confusing you. You were looking at *load-time* expansion, which also happens. You were then confusing it with *run-time* expansion. > Patches are unlikely in that atmosphere. You are unlikely to solve the problem if you are looking at the wrong thing. Was I wrong to tell you that? > My point: _syntax_ checking for valid _syntax_ at > a time _other_ than run time _is_ _possible_ without having to go the > extra mile of semantic checking, as in, variable expansion. I am not > talking about variable expansion, since that is only possible by running > packets through the server (at run time). Sure. Supply a patch. > Since I am not allowed to inspect the source code, The fact that the source is publicly available from many locations, *and* the project continually accepts patches shows that this comment is just you being whingy. > I would not have been > able to discover the following comments relevant to this thread: And the purpose of quoting those comments is... ? Nothing technical, that's for sure. As a hint: my feelings won't be hurt if you quote my opinions back to me. Nice try, though. > If my employer would permit, That's your problem. > and if you would allow me to look at the source, And that's also your problem. I'm sorry your feelings are hurt. > I would be happy to supply a patch. Ah, yes. The "I *would* help, but you horrible people have been *mean* to me" defense. We've seen that lots, thanks. > Neither of these are likely to happen in > any event. This thread was created to shed some light on the issue. I do > appreciate your comments. Thanks again. :-) Sure. Any time. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
