I favour a fuller explanation, this one is fine by me.
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 17:20, Laurence Tratt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I wanted to use httpd's fastcgi "socket" and "strip" options and based upon
> the man page's brief text:
>
> [no] fastcgi [option]
> Enable FastCGI instead of serving files. Valid options are:
>
> tried "obvious" permutations such as:
>
> fastcgi strip 1 socket "..."
> fastcgi socket "..." strip 1
> fastcgi socket "...", strip 1
>
> but with each was greeted by a terse "syntax error".
>
> After hunting around in the relevant parse.y file, it transpires that the
> grammar allows, roughly speaking, the following:
>
> fastcgi
> fastcgi option
> fastcgi { option ((',' '\n'? | '\n') option)* }
>
> In other words, if you want to use more than one option you *have* to use
> the {...} notation, but there's more than one way for options inside curly
> brackets to be separated. In my case I can specify:
>
> fastcgi {
> socket "..."
> strip 1
> }
>
> or:
>
> fastcgi {
> socket "...", strip 1
> }
>
> or:
>
> fastcgi {
> socket "...",
> strip 1
> }
>
> This raised a couple of questions in my mind.
>
> First, stylistically, I'm not quite sure if having three slightly different
> ways of separating multiple options is useful or not. That said, I assume
> that some people might already be taking advantage of this flexibility, so
> perhaps worrying about it now is pointless.
>
> Second, is it worthwhile giving users a hint about what to do when multiple
> options need to be specified? For example, something like:
>
> [no] fastcgi [option]
> Enable FastCGI instead of serving files. If more than option
> is specified, they must be included inside { ... }, with each
> option separated by a comma or newline. Valid options are:
>
> I'm happy to raise a patch if other people think this is worth fixing,
> although I'm not entirely sure if we want to make people aware of the full
> extent of the grammar, or something a little less complete such as the
> suggestion above.
>
>
> Laurie
>
