On 2011/06/14 15:43, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 03:58:46PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote: > > > > > > > > if you want to document it, i'd prefer to try and tuck it in nice and > > > neat, without an example. how about rearranging the section to something > > > like this: > > > > > > Comments can be put anywhere in the file using a hash mark > > > (`#'), and extend to the end of the current line. The > > > current line itself can be extended using a backslash (`\'). > > > > > > Additional configuration files can be included with the > > > include keyword, for example: > > > > > > include "/etc/pf/sub.filter.conf" > > > > > > ... > > > > > > that would be just a one line addition. > > > > > > i'd prefer to try and keep this little blurb short, as i think we > > > should expect readers to understand the idea of `#' as comments, > > > and `\' as extending the current line. > > > > > > > Right. > > The problem is what happens when you combine `#' and `\' on the same > > line. pf.conf does one thing, extending the comment. ksh (for example) > > does something else, ignoring/commenting the `\'. I'm not sure if your > > addition captures this distinction. > > > > ah, i missed that part. i think the text i proposed still makes it clear > that it would work this way but admittedly it does not address it head > on. > > so i'm not fussed. i'll leave it to stuart to decide whether the example > is actually needed or not. i suppose if it is different to the shell, it > will confuse people.
I think it needs to be mentioned explicitly as, although it's something people coming from a programming background might expect, it's completely alien to people who only edit configuration files and common scripting languages. You're right about it getting copied to other places, there are 9 copies in tree and I'd rather not come up with an example for each, so I would be happier to have it in the text rather than as an example if it can be done clearly, but I haven't managed it...
