On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 22:49:15 +0200, Tobias Oetiker wrote: > it is not my intention to fight with you ... so if you want to > argue about my sugestions, tell me then I won't have to spend my > time writing these things up ...
I'm not fighting or trying to pick an argument with anyone, and I'm truly sorry that you took it that way. I think we're misunderstanding each other somehow. > well using positional optional arguments was not a good idea, but > there we are ... and after all there we are ... with your / > spearator you would again break stuff, notably all instances where > / was used in the comment ... > > stack on the other hand is a key[=value] type argument so there is > not need for an extra empty :: pair if there is no stack ... The reason I suggested "/" as a separator was so that the old syntax (with no changes whatsoever) would continue to work, hence the following two lines would be equivalent (and valid): LINE3.5:in#ff0000:Incoming:STACK LINE:in/width=3.5/color=#ff0000/stack/legend=Incoming How could this break anything? AFAICT, the second line isn't valid in the current syntax since a 'value' can't contain "/" (right?) and must be followed by "#", ":" or nothing. (This means that only the first "/" is important, the others could be ":" or whatever.) Anyhow, I'll leave the subject for the time being, and again I'm sorry if you thought I was being rude. -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/rrd-developers WebAdmin http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/lsg2.cgi
