> There should not be two different syntaxes, the above should be used in
> both cases.
OK, this is going to make life easier for me. And it's true anyway that we can
put in optimizations later without changing the VCL syntax. Thanks for your
advise!
Nils
__
In message <4b93b6ea.9010...@schokola.de>, Nils Goroll writes:
>> The syntax for this is already decided, just not implemented:
>>
>> set client.ip = IP(req.http.x-forwarded-for);
>
>Thank you for pointing this out, so I am going to implement this syntax for
>the
>case where runtime conver
>> My main question is if they should be tokenized as CSTRs or rather as new
>> tokens, e.g. of token type IP (not to be confused with variable type IP).
>
> The syntax for this is already decided, just not implemented:
>
> set client.ip = IP(req.http.x-forwarded-for);
Thank you for point
In message <4b93b0ab.4080...@schokola.de>, Nils Goroll writes:
>My main question is if they should be tokenized as CSTRs or rather as new
>tokens, e.g. of token type IP (not to be confused with variable type IP).
The syntax for this is already decided, just not implemented:
set client.i
Hi,
I want to add support for assignment to ip address type variables to the VCL.
VRT support looks fairly straight forward (convert strings to struct sockaddr *
using inet_pton), but I am uncertain about a good way to represent literal
addresses in the VCL.
My main question is if they should
