On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Phil Pennock wrote:
> > How much work would it be to change the parser to accept:
> > fred_private
> > to be option 'fred' but marked as private? A bit like 'nofred'?
> >
> > Then just let the administrator choose, when they perform the
> > configuration.
>
> Patch to allow "secret_fred". You can't use it in combination with
> "no_" or "not_" - just use "secret_booloption = no" for that. It's not
> extensively tested, but It Seems To Work (tm).
This was previously suggested, and over the weekend I had come to the
conclusion that it was the best idea. I think I prefer the syntax "hide
fred" rather than "secret_fred", and I would want it to work with "no_"
etc. so you can say "hide no_fred" if you want to.
But many thanks for the patch. I'll work from it.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
