Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> wrote: > On 12/06/2019 11:25, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > That said, they do seem to declare something like > > oc-ext:regexp-posix; but it would have been much smarter to use for > > example oc-posix:regex instead of changing the semantics of the > > pattern statement. > > Yes, this would be preferable, but it has a downside: now you need to > carry the patterns twice and must make sure they are in sync.
In the OC models they would/could just use the oc-posix:regex statement, and not even use the pattern statement. The current solution doesn't really work, since it requires tools to understand the "regexp-posix" extension. And yes, I'm the first to admit that tailf:action had the same kind of problem. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
