On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 03:01 +0200, Thomas Anders wrote:
> Dave Shield wrote:
> > I'd like to propose that we start a move to separate
> > such internal directives from user-level directives, by
> > naming them distinctively. The most obvious approach
> > would probably be to use a leading underscore.
> I don't like the underscore too much. Users are not necessarily
> familiar with what programmers associate with an underscore.
> It may cause confusion instead.
But such directives wouldn't normally appear in "general user"
locations, documentation, etc. So most users simply wouldn't
be aware of them.
And I'd suggest that such users probably wouldn't think of
using a leading underscore in normal usage, which would serve
the desired purpose of keeping things separate.
> As for internal vs. regular: I'll note that some people sometimes *need*
> to use those "internal" config directives (like usmUser or oldEngineID)
> to implement arbitrary settings not offered by the regular tokens.
a) then perhaps the regular config directives should be extended
to support such requirements (if they're reasonably sensible)
b) the internal directives *would* still be available to all users.
I wasn't proposing to handle them any differently, or actively
block their use in visible config files. Simply to have an
agreed syntax for them.
> Last not least, the idea of documenting the persistent configuration
> tokens separately has still not taken off. You're not trying to avoid
> that, do you? ;-)
Yes.
Or at least, to reduce the load on whoever volunteers to tackle
this documentation.
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
