12 Jul
2005
12 Jul
'05
1:23 p.m.
Hi everybody,
form consistency point of view, I totally agree with Juha's suggestion -
go for a C-like language and use break only for switch and return for
exiting the routes.
on the other hand, I worry about backward compatibility - the change
will have quite an impact - and SER compatibility (SER scripts will not
work on OpenSER).
IMHO we should go for a middle stage (as Daniel suggested): the syntax
will accept break outside switch, but generating a warning and
converting it internally to return(1); break will be normally accepted
in switches.
regards,
bogdan
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 07/11/05 21:52, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
this is an option, too. But I am afraid that some users will be scared
when they will see that compatibility is broken and they will not
easily test the development version using their old config file. Maybe
a intermediary version that display warnings at startup that 'break'
is obsolete and will be dropped soon in favor of 'return' would be
better;
'esac' seems more appropriate to avoid more mess up between 'break'
and 'sbreak'.
Daniel
It is similar with C 'switch' construct,
but it uses 'sbreak'
instead of > C-'break', because in openser
the keyword 'break' is
already used for > other meaning. I am not fully convinced whether to
use this 'sbreak' > keyword, or better 'esac' (shell-like), any
better idea?
since the language is changing anyway, why not introduce "return" that
returns from a route block and then use break to beak from switch and
possibly other statements you come up with. then semantics would be the
same as in c.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel