Re: [squid-users] squid.conf: continuation lines?

From: Robert Collins <robert.collins@dont-contact.us>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:55:13 +1000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Nordstrom" <hno@hem.passagen.se>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Cc: <squid-dev@squid-cache.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [squid-users] squid.conf: continuation lines?

> I think we should have quoted as in "quoted". The
> "/path/to/included/file" is ugly and can be done a lot more
intuitively,
> so there is no need for the two to collide.

I've got the statement
include /usr/local/squid/etc/squidmodules.conf
in my squid.conf here. It includes the contents of
/usr/local/squid/etc/squidmodules.conf

I've also got a parser type that allows escaped strings like
%0A%0A%0A<html>
to be used, and thats needed to get non-printable characters.

If you want a quote surrounded parser type, ie quoted_wordlist that
treats the contents of a "..." pair as a single wordlist item I can do
that very easily too.

Rob

>
> --
> Henrik
>
>
> Robert Collins wrote:
>
> > > What is quite badly needed is a good parser that supports a
reasonable
> > > configuration file syntax rules:
> > >
> > > * Quoted strings, to allow for spaces and similar things
> > Tick. (Done) (I used the url quoting syntax).
> > > * Backquote for continuation lines
> > Can do
> > > * Includes, not only element includes.
> > Tick. (Done)
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > > --
> > > Henrik
> > >
> > > Robert Collins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would backquote be a good thing? It'll be trivial to add
> > > to the generic
> > > > modules parsing code. That won't Werner's question of course :]
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > >
>
Received on Fri May 11 2001 - 20:57:28 MDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:14:01 MST