On 2022/09/25 18:46:50 +0200, Stefan Sperling <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 06:38:12PM +0200, Omar Polo wrote:
> > gotwebd' parse.y is derived from the "usual" parse.y, yet it doesn't
> > have `include's nor the macro syntax, yet it has -D. Don't know if it
> > was a deliberate decision, but I personally like having the include
> > and variables available. (i've also took the liberty to rename
> > newfile/closefile to pushfile/popfile to be closer to the other
> > parse.y files.)
> > the manpage wording is stolen from smtpd.conf, vm.conf and httd.conf.
> > ok?
> I suspect the lack of variables is just an oversight.
> We definitely want those.
> Regarding include, it adds some complexity which can sometimes backfire.
> E.g. what happens if an included file overrides a variable used by
> the outer file before and after the inner file gets included?
every time you use a variable the last assigned value is used.
`include' in parse.y files is very, very similar to CPP' #include, so
in yuor example in the outer file you'll see the value defined in the
previously included file. at least for me, it's expected behaviour.
-D is a "cheat mode" where you forcefully override variables in the
> Are we really sure we need this for gotwebd? What is your use case?
to be fair i don't think i'll use variables or include files anytime
soon, just as i'm not using fancy `listen on': my setup is pretty
standard and could even work without a config file at all for the most
However, I see some value in it. It could help for example to have a
local config file while sync'inc the main gotwebd.conf across several
machines for example. Most of the justification however is "because
vmd, smtpd, httpd, ... allow this." I won't push for `include' if we
don't want it (at least initially) tho.