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 like
it,
On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Robin Sommer ro...@icir.org 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
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.
Pattern
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
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 additional constraint
