> On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Robin Sommer wrote:
>
> Had discussed this with Matthias before, but for the record: I like
> it, too. :-) (This form; less the one with return values, at least for
> now).
I like this proposal a lot too.
.Seth
--
Seth Hall
International Computer Science Inst
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:43 -0700, you wrote:
> switch( f() )
> {
> case addr:
> if ( x in 10.0.0.0/8 )
> result = "got it!";
> case string:
> result = "f() failed: " + x;
> }
Had discussed this with Matthias before, but for the record: I
> > local result = switch( x )
> > {
> > case T:
> > case U:
> > };
>
> Personally, this strike me as a tad weird, since now "result" might not
> have a statically determined type, so we're back to it being "any".
To avoid falling back to "any land," the addi
> I want to propose introducing pattern matching for the Bro language.
Per our discussion yesterday, I like this notion in general. (Seems we
need a better term for it, though, as "pattern matching" is very generic -
plus will confuse some people who'll think it refers to NIDS rules rather
than g
TL;DR:
function f() : any;
local result = "";
switch( f() )
{
case addr:
if ( x in 10.0.0.0/8 )
result = "got it!";
case string:
result = "f() failed: " + x;
}
I want to propose introducing pattern matching for the Bro language.
Patte
