On 05/26/2013 10:05 PM, Kinkie wrote: >>> The only thing I would like to see differently implemented is the >>> syntax used to include files: >>> file(path) would be IMO easier to understand and less prone to >>> confusion than the proposed syntax. >> >> OK. >> But imagine in the future also the following syntax: >> file:/path/file >> system:/usr/local/squid/bin/my-squid-conf (to read from an executable >> stdout configuration options) >> http://hostname/cfgfile (to get from web page configuration) >> >> All the above can be implemented in the future... > > Sure, I agree. > > file(/path/file) > system(/some/executable) > http_get(http://hostname/file)
Well, this is not a bad scheme :-) Just the file:/path/to/file a little easier to implement. But not something important... > > What I simply meant is that it is very customary for anyone who has > ever dabbled in any programming language to see a pattern where > name(...) > is either a funciton invocation, or a macro call > > It's also a syntax that was never used in Squid, so it's not > encumbered by legacy. > > Note: I'm not vetoing the syntax, just chiming in with a suggestion:I > am sure that there are excellent reasons for doing it like you > thought. > > > -- > /kinkie >
