Some things, such defines and substitutions, would be comfortable inside opensips. Why don't you use m4 inside C code, but use defines? Don't it stretch C sources?
And another question. Why includes support was applied to opensips? It also can be done by m4. It's useful to have a few ways to do something, convenient to each opensips user. If m4 is better for you, it doesn't mean that it's better for me. -- Nick 2012/4/2 Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[email protected]>: > Hi Rudy, > > On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:00 PM, Rudy wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Not that I particularly support the addition of "substitutions" >> inside the current config parser, but one thing I have wanted myself >> is something similar to defines. Flipping the question to Saul, >> assuming we are all familiar with m4, what kind of parser additions >> would you need to completely omit m4 from your current configurations? >> This seems to be like an opportunity to brainstorm some new ideas, not >> only for 1.x branch, but possibly for 2.0 configuration files. >> > > IMHO, there is no need for creating a new programming language for OpenSIPS > configuration. An existing one can be embedded and used to write the config > script, think Python or Lua. > > Why spend time in reinventing tools we already have? > > > Regards, > > -- > Saúl Ibarra Corretgé > AG Projects > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
