Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 01:54:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Config File Line Continuation (take 3)
In-Reply-To: <199803030919.KAA17976@en1.engelschall.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.980304015344.18840A-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Well yeah I suppose I can't complain that it'll make some configs
impossible.  So I'm not gonna veto it.  RAW_ARGS just bug me :)

Dean

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

> 
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96dg4.980302142400.25490I-100000@twinlark.arctic.org> you wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> >>       `[!BACKSLASH] BACKSLASH [CR] LF'
> >>   occurs. In other words: The line is continued only when a backslash is seens
> >>   _directly_ before the newline and _only if_ it is not explicitly escaped by
> >>   another preceeding backslash.
> 
> > But this still doesn't fix the RAW_ARGS problem.  Here let me find a
> > RAW_ARGS directive... require, it's RAW_ARGS.  Consider
> 
> > require user abc\
> > would suddenly cause continuation, and if you say: 
> > require user abc\\
> > then you're requiring "abc\\" not "abc\". 
> 
> Hmmmm... yes, good point. But my fault, I think. I've added the escaping
> variant \\ in take 3 of the patch but  only the half way. When it doesn't
> exists, line continuation is ok.  But when it exists, it means an escaped
> backslash and in more detail: It means only one(!) backslash. So, when I add
> this functionality (the escape-backslash is stripped), are you then happy,
> Dean?
>                                        Ralf S. Engelschall
>                                        rse@engelschall.com
>                                        www.engelschall.com
>