On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:21:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > > But is it good practice for the main distributed rules to rely on this > default? It feels like a lint/pedantic error to define a rule that is > not T_ or __ and does not have an assigned score. But maybe this is > common and normal.
It's common and normal. > That says scores in () are relative to the "already set score". So > technically this is not a failure to follow docs, in that no score is > set. But it seems unhelpful to users not to be able to see > > FOO_RULE 1 > > in a report and to decide they like that rule and do > > score FOO_RULE (1) >From what I've seen, it's very uncommon to use this format. Why rely on some vague previously defined score, which can change at any time? Just set a static score you like and fits your system. > So maybe that (n) expression should be ok with the implicit 1. Parser processes config files and lines in order, it's not possible to know in advance if the static rule score referred to would actually be defined at a later stage. It would require lots of logic changes.
