httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@ai.mit.edu (Robert S. Thau)
Subject Re: Shambhala Modules Musings [network wizard advice sought at bottom]
Date Tue, 04 Jul 1995 11:25:26 GMT
   From: Rob Hartill <hartill@ooo.lanl.gov>
   Date: Mon, 3 Jul 95 14:22:29 MDT

   > Failure to handle the '.foo' syntax was reported to me as a bug, and
   > fixed, sometime after that.  (Doing what the user obviously wanted in
   > this case is at *least* as easy as doing anything else).

   so is '..foo' possible ?, it doesn't sound like if '.foo' gets translated
   to 'foo'. I'll never use it, so do whatever you think is best.

Actually, '..foo' wouldn't ever have worked, because the code regards
'.' as a delimiter for suffixes --- on this theory, '..foo' is two
suffixes, not one, the first being null.  You'd have to really mess
with the code to get it to treat the second '.' as part of a suffix
delimited by the first, and I'm not sure I see the point.

Besides, it seems clear that a whole lot of people, including many in
this group, are already using the 'Addtype foo/bar .fubar' syntax no
matter *what* the documentation says.  It might as well work,
particularly since that's no more trouble than doing anything else
with it (e.g., declaring it a syntax error and wrecking peoples'
existing setups).

rst

Mime
View raw message