On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 08:22:23AM -0700, Robin Sommer wrote: > > comments. Like Jan, I had a hard time understanding the benefit having > > two names for the same value: the identifier and config string. > > Yeah, that's been my original concern as well. What if we focused that > new attribute just on displaying something to the user: > > const user_name: string &redef &display_name="User name"
I am not sure that we do need a new language element for that at all. If we want a new attribute for just displaying information in a different way, that (at least to me) feels more like something broxygen would do (i.e. something that a script writer could put into one of the ## comments if they so desire for the respective variable). That being said, I still think it would be nice to have something in the Bro language to denote that a value is a configuration option, mostly for the reasons stated in the very first email. The biggest reason from my point of view is strong typing - we tried to implement this just as Bro scripts and it ends up not so nice. So - how about something like this: ## The username for our new feature ## ## Display: Feature User Name const user_name: string &config; or configopt user_name: string; The comment block identifies the display name which can be picked up by the UI (and documentation generation). The &config attribute (or the configopt specifier) specifies this as a configuration option. The name in the comment blocks also can be used for other language elements and will be used in the documentation. Johanna _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
